My claim does make sense. Both are equally useless marketing speak.

If a company claims their vehicle is capable of doing 0-60 in 3.8 seconds and it takes 5 seconds that's something worth calling them out over and false advertising. Claims about being the first or the best and similar are meaningless... not to mention it's a claim you'd almost certainly fail to make stick.

As others have pointed out you leave out the portion of their claim which states it's the first "with the durability to stand up to professional kitchens". If you take the statement as a whole rather quoting it out of context as you did there's ample room to make a case it's true.

Furthermore as you yourself pointed out it was manufacturing delays that prevented them from being first to market. But does a company have to be the first to market to claim to be the "first" at something? For example IBM is widely credited with building the first graphical operating system, although they never brought it to market. I could quote endless other examples.

That's not to say I'm trying to make the argument their argument is true. The argument is it's meaningless whether statements like that are true or not. Save your outrage for places it's actually meaningful.