Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2021).pdf/18

 497 F.3d at 159–160 (quoting Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464 (2d Cir. 1995), Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939, 945 (3d Cir. 1993), and Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489, 497 (5th Cir. 2000)). Thus, and contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, a provable statement may still constitute nonactionable puffery if it fits into either of the other two detailed categories.

Under these principles, the Court is persuaded that UpCodes’s representations regarding accuracy and completeness are nonactionable puffery. At the outset, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately pled falsity as to these statements by alleging that while UpCodes claims that the codes it offers are complete and accurate, they are not. Nonetheless, the statements of completeness and accuracy -- that, for example, UpCodes provides “a complete understanding of relevant material,” its code library is “always up to date,” and customers will “never work from outdated code”