other sports drink, offers hydr im of superiority that could be implied by it would be vague and nonspecific. See Time Warner Cable, Inc., 497 F.3d at 160 (“a general claim of superiority over comparable products that is so vague that it can be understood as nothing more than a mere expression of opinion” is puffery) (quoting Pizza Hut, 227 F.3d at 497); Lipton, 71 F.3d at 474. The tagline does not say that Powerade ION4 will upgrade consumers’ game by a specific amount, nor does it claim that it will upgrade their game in any particular way. Without any language that could be read to make a specific or measurable superiority claim, the “Upgrade your formula. Upgrade your game” statement is puffery and therefore not actionable. See, e.g., Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc., 911 F.2d at 246 (<HOLDING>); cf. Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1145
holding that statements proclaiming the most costeffective prices and subscription prices as low as possible were puffery holding that statement were the low cost commercial collection experts was puffery because any implication that services were superior to that of the competition was merely general in nature holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery holding statement that product was americas favorite pasta was puffery holding that experts testimony that defendants engaged in fraud and deceit was admissible because the words were used in colloquial fashion but statement that defendants violated federal regulations was inadmissible as a legal conclusion