Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2021).pdf/19

 (Complaint at ¶¶ 50, 52) -- are nonactionable because they are exactly the type of “exaggerated” and “boasting” statements “upon which no reasonable buyer would be justified in relying.” Time Warner, 497 F.3d at 160 (citations omitted). Indeed, numerous courts have treated the terms “accurate” and “complete” as puffing language. E.g., Patt v. Antech Diagnostics, Inc. , 18 Civ. 01689, 2019 WL 6654078, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) (observing “a virtual consensus among courts in the Ninth Circuit that generalized claims of dependability, reliability, or accuracy are mere nonactionable puffery”); Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 646 F. Supp. 2d 510, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[T]he Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recognized that advertising terms like ‘complete’ are puffery because they are subjective and cannot be proven true or false.”) (citing Lipton, 71 F.3d at 474).

The fact that these statements exist in the context of researching legal requirements does not prohibit their classification as puffery, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument. The Court recognizes the importance of maintaining accurate codes and the negative consequences that can result from consumers’ reliance on outdated and erroneous codes. However, codes are not static, nor are the laws that rely on them. As changes in law occur, some delay between the adoption of those