If I read that a product for melting ice is "safe for pets" and then found out that pets can injure their paws after walking on the product when it was laid out, I would be pretty upset.

I think the definition of "safe for pets" can vary depending on what product we're talking out. For something like ice melt, I would assuming that "safe for pets" meant something like, "pets can ingest it, come in contact with it, and generally be around it without causing undue harm as a result."

If what the lawsuit alleges is true, the ice melt clearly doesn't meet that definition.