further alleges that Defendants have adopted a policy mandating admission of patients with certain medical conditions without regard to the capacity of the Defendants’ facilities to provide adequate care, leading to violations of law. Defendants respond that the statements Plaintiff identifies are non-actionable “puffery.” Defendants contend that these statements cannot serve as the basis for claims under Minnesota consumer protection statutes. Defendants, therefore, argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court agrees with Defendants. Puffery includes exaggerated blustering or boasting and vague, subjective statements of superiority. Am. Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); LensCrafters, Inc. v. Vision World, Inc., 943
holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved 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 statement that product was americas favorite pasta was puffery holding that appellants own statement admitting act even if mere puffery is sufficient to justify a jury finding that he committed the act for purposes of rule 404b holding that statement must be product of a startling event