I agree with you but the idea that customers will ‘taste and decide’ is a bit of a challenge. If consumers get a ‘whiff’ that any winery has been less than honest about this issue, it will ‘taint’ the impression of the overall vintage to many - and that would be a shame.
And if I were growers and found out that wineries refused fruit that they had co tracted with for unjustifiable reasons other than smoke taint, I’d be pissed.
Were there wineries who perhaps had too much inventory and decided to ‘pass’ on fruit and ‘claim’ smoke taint? Most likely. I’d love to hear about them.