changes, their dissemination to the public, and their publication on the UpCodes website is not only understandable, but expected.[1] In other words, “no reasonable buyer” would take UpCodes’s representations of accuracy and completeness to mean that the codes are instantaneously updated and at all times error-free. Thus, “there is no danger of consumer deception and hence, no basis for a false advertising claim.” Stokely-Van Camp, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 526 (quoting Time Warner, 497 F.3d at 159 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
This finding is further supported by a disclaimer on the UpCodes website, cited in the Complaint, in which UpCodes expressly disclaims liability for “any errors or omissions in the information or content” on its website and expressly disclaims warranting that the services provided will be “error-free.” (Complaint ¶ 47); see also Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[U]nder certain circumstances, the presence of a disclaimer or similar clarifying language may defeat a claim of deception.”).
- ↑ To the extent Plaintiff argues that the errors on UpCodes’s website are rampant, the Court finds the Complaint insufficient to support the plausible existence of such rampant errors. The Complaint plausibly alleges errors in the codes of four states: Wyoming, Virginia, Oregon, and New Jersey, and the conclusions contained herein are based on those errors. (See Section III.A.1, supra.)
20
