The Court is not persuaded otherwise by ICC’s reference to a passage in the Summary Judgment Order in which the Court noted that some of the codes contain “rather surprising oversights.” See ICC, 2020 WL 2750636, at *18. First, the Court further noted in the Summary Judgment Order that “Defendants corrected these issues when notified by ICC.” Id. at *19. Thus, the facts on which the finding of “surprising oversights” was based have since changed. And in any event, the identification of errors in the Summary Judgment Order does not conflict with the Court’s conclusion on the present motion that some degree of error is expected.
Because the Court concludes that these statements are nonactionable puffery, it need not, and does not, address Defendants’ arguments regarding materiality or injury. To the extent the false advertising claims are premised on UpCodes’s representations of accuracy and completeness, they are dismissed.
- 3. Representations Regarding Unique Services
Defendants argue that ICC has failed to establish the falsity of the statement on UpCodes’s website that it is “the only source of integrated amendments.” As it appears on the UpCodes website, the representation is actually qualified, and indeed ICC’s own screenshot shows that UpCodes claims to be the only source of integrated codes only for “jurisdictions
21
