Not worth the trouble to claim leak damage to Energizer IMHO. I would just trash the meter and never keep alkalines for long periods of time installed in instruments or things of value.
It’s not about financial worth. Obviously the expected outcome is negative. Even if not for Dave, it is for average person. This is why manufacturers may safely make such claims. Dave also have entire boxes of multimeters, so I doubt it’s even a serious loss.
The point is different: it’s opposition to something that may be a deceptive marketing strategy. We already know that “no-leak” alkaline batteries leak and the extent of damage of that is as large as with other models. So you do not receive the advertised product. How much the advertising is misleading is hard to estimate. The leaks may be exceptional cases (nothing is perfect), in which situation it is an acceptable simplifying of the image, but they may as well be an open lie with Energizer batteries not being better than the cheapest nonames. I have no data. But in absence of it, the safest assumption is something in the middle. And that is worth of a reaction.
Since Dave is a YouTuber, he may also do that for entertainment: both his and ours. And to lessen tension: if you see you are not the only one who receives absurd responses and facepalms, it really has a therapeutic value.
As for practical aspects and expectations, I wonder where is all the fine print. In the plain sight we already have “devices may be replaced with a product of comparable market value at the time of claim.” Read as: device age is taken into account and I bet they will use exponential value decay. Since Dave opened the DMM and cleaned it, that is an open gate to say it doesn’t work because of his actions.