Alice, you're quoting a court case that is outdated and has been superseded by new regulations. And you seem to be interpreting regulations like someone who wants to wring and twist them into things they were not designed to do. And, as far as I can tell, putting together quotes that are independent into something that looks as if it has a link. I still have not seen any indication of that what you are saying is reality. Tom correctly says that the fact that people do it does not make it legal. (And I doubt that people do this anyway.) Remy says that there is a "loop hole" (but not the one you refer to in the text) but that it is virtually never used. It would be interesting to see anything concrete that substantiates what you say - that one and the same wine can, legally, be both chaptalised and acidified.