Does a materiality qualifier make representations basically meaningless to enforce?

No, though it does change what the representation actually protects against, and understanding that difference matters more than assuming a materiality qualifier guts the whole clause. A representation qualified by materiality — for example, that there are no material undisclosed liabilities, rather than no undisclosed liabilities at all — simply sets a threshold: minor, immaterial issues fall outside the promise, but anything crossing the materiality line is still a genuine, enforceable breach if it turns out to be false.

The real risk with a materiality qualifier isn't unenforceability, it's a dispute about where that threshold actually sits in a specific situation, which is exactly the kind of fight covered elsewhere in how "material" gets interpreted. There's also a related, more technical issue some purchase agreements address directly: whether a materiality qualifier already built into a representation should be applied again when calculating indemnity damages for breaching it, since double-counting materiality at both stages can unfairly shrink what the buyer actually recovers — sophisticated agreements often include a specific clause addressing this "double materiality" problem.

If your agreement's representations are heavily qualified by materiality throughout, it's worth having a Treadstone business lawyer assess whether that pattern actually reflects a fair balance for your side of the deal.