"higher standard of safety" is puffery even as to child car seats

ElSayed v. Columbus Trading Partners USA Inc., No. 25-cv-01347 (FB) (TAM), 2026 WL 1042209 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2026)

ElSayed alleged that CTP’s infant car seat were faulty and defective in violation of NY consumer protection law. The court dismissed the complaint because “safety” claims were too vague to be actionable.

CTP advertised that its car seat conforms to a “higher standard of safety” because it was “engineered in Germany—where safety standards are among the highest in the world,” among other claims. But it was voluntarily recalled because one of the harness system anchor pins tended to break. It also offered a free remedy kit, though that wasn’t available when the complaint was filed, at which time CTP advised consumers that they should check the anchor pins for damage before every use until the remedy kits became available.

CTP argued that “New York law requires a manifested defect for a plaintiff to recover on any claim.” But unlike the products described in the cited cases, the car seat didn’t perform satisfactorily:

The recall explicitly instructs caregivers to check the Aton G’s harness pins before every use, because they were prone to bend or break. This is not a situation of theoretical harm caused by a potential defect; at issue here is an actual defect manifested in every Aton G subject to the recall. Accordingly, Plaintiff did not get the benefit of her bargain, instead finding herself saddled with a faulty and dangerous CRS which she could not use as expected and which she had to manually examine before every use. This is not how a car seat is supposed to be used, and it is therefore defective by definition.

However, the false advertising claims failed because they were too vague. Along with the phrases above, CTP also said that the car seat had “advanced safety features;” “combines advanced technologies with luxurious details to deliver an exceptional first car seat for your child”; “marries the highest standard of safety with a focus on child comfort”; and “[o]ffer[s] maximum convenience and safety without comprising on design.”

But general statements about a product’s safety “do not create an enforceable promise.” The court pointed to judicial divisions over whether Uber’s claims to have “the strictest safety standards possible” and “the safest rides on the road” were puffery—some said they were actionable because superiority over other methods was verifiable and others said they were “too boastful, self-congratulatory, aspirational, or vague to amount to misrepresentation.” Under this “vague and inexact” standard, the plaintiff failed to state a claim. CTP’s “highest standards of safety” claim was not paired with any superlative statements and stayed general and vague statements. The court also found a “meaningful difference between a company claiming that they offer the safest product and claiming that they set the highest safety standards. Standards in the abstract are necessarily aspirational, as they describe a policy or plan and not the actual outcome or product.” [Requiring consumers to read like lawyers always goes well!]