In brief, the book "Tort of Misrepresentation for Dummies" we will excerpt the chapter on Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions:
A fiduciary relationship is a trust relationship of special responsibility toward others.
The representatives of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Corporation have such a relationship toward congregation elders and congregants (however much they have attempted to release those bonds of unholy matrimony).
Elders are legally NOT representatives of the corporate entities, however they still have a fiduciary responsiblity toward the congregants.
At the point of indoctrination, those in a fiduciary relationship toward others have a heavy responsibility before the law when it comes to relating secular facts. In the case of the elders, they will trust that the information received from above is true and will act accordingly. In the case of congregants, information from either higher source will be heavily weighted by their trust of the source.
Any decisions congregants might make based on this trust with regard to communicated religious beliefs is entirely outside the bounds of law. But if the decision was in any part influenced by misrepresented secular data, it constitutes a tortuous violation of the fiduciary relationship through misrepresentation. This portion is what has already been successfully tested in court. This portion HAS PRECEDENT. Keep this in mind, everything up to this point has already been upheld. Portions of this, such as the fiduciary relationships between the various entities, have been precedent for decades.
As this precedent relates to Jehovah's Witnesses, no one has tested this versus the blood doctrine. If the organization had never stated a single medical fact there would be nothing to pursue. However, they did. A lot. Wherever they misrepresented secular facts as part of the indoctrination they violated the fiduciary relationship in an actionable way.
Did that hit home?
Severus suggests correctly that JWs might pursue this. However, I believe the easiest case to press would be one involving an unbelieving mate losing their spouse.
The point is, whenever and wherever it starts, it will not stop. They cannot risk exposure to this degree of litigable threat.
Hopefully everyone including Eduardo and West70 followed that.