the representation that UpCodes displays Integrated Amendments is false.
Plaintiff counters that Defendants minimize the scope of their mistakes. Plaintiff asserts that the errors specifically identified in the Complaint are “not an exhaustive list” (see Complaint ¶ 44), and urges that it is not required to plead every error at this stage. Moreover, Plaintiff urges that even if there are only two dozen errors among tens of thousands of integrated codes, that still renders the representation false.
As a threshold matter, the Court is unpersuaded by ICC’s reliance on additional, unidentified errors to support its argument. The Complaint must, on its face, establish a plausible likelihood of success if the facts alleged therein are assumed to be true. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, the Court will not rely on ICC’s vague and conclusory allegations about the existence of additional errors, and will instead ground its analysis in the errors plausibly alleged in the Complaint.
Even if the Complaint plausibly alleged more errors, though, the Court would still conclude that the statements regarding amendment integration are neither literally nor impliedly false. As Defendants point out, ICC acknowledges that UpCodes’s website does in fact contain “some” integrated
15
