English did not, however, allege why the product, as "thong sandals," was not safe to use in the shower. Cf. id. at 149 (noting allegations that the jogging track covered in astroturf was not safe for jogging due to certain characteristics of the astroturf); see also Martin v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 887, 894 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (granting summary judgment to the defendant on a DTPA misrepresentation claim because plaintiffs failed to state that the defendant represented that the item had characteristics, uses, or benefits which it did not possess); Shkolnick v. Coastal Fumigators, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 100, 106 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (holding that plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine material fact issue that defendants misrepresented that their inspection services were in accordance with industry standards because plaintiffs failed to identify an industry standard that was not met). In other words, English did not allege, nor offer any argument on, what qualities are required for a shoe to actually serve as a "shower shoe" and why "thong sandals" does not meet that standard.