Is there any legal standard that USPS first class mail doesn&#39;t qualify as legal proof of delivery?
<p>I am currently in dispute/complaint working against Lexus over recall notice that never got delivered to me.
At the same mailing address, I have received a recall notice couple years ago without any troubles where I was able to get my car fixed with the recall service.
This time, one of parts from my car started having issues and then when I did online research, I found out there has been a recall that I was never aware of.
I reached out to Lexus and they have informed the time window has passed so they cannot do any complimentary replacement. 
While I started arguing that I never received any notice, the corporate service is counter-arguing that they have "record" of first class mail going out (perhaps via Pitney Bowes or similar services). Based on my knowledge, any first-class mail does not qualify as legal proof due to the fact that it does not include any tracking such as certified/registered mail. 
I am trying to bring up a point that by law, first-class mail does not prove the fact that they have delivered the notice. Can anyone let me know if there is any legal documentation that I can refer to? Any helps would be appreciated.</p>

<p>First-class mail is acceptable for many different kinds of delivery in legal contexts. It is often not sufficient for service of a summons or subpoena, as noted in the other answer.</p>

<p>But I don't think any of that is relevant, because you're dealing with a product recall, not legal service.</p>

<p>This is almost certainly a voluntary recall, as mandatory recalls are very rare. If that is the case, I don't know of any law that requires a notice to be made in any particular way whatsoever. Instead, the Consumer Products Safety Commission has broad <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/8002.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">guidelines</a> (see page 18) for how a company may consider communicating the fact of a recall, and they include many mechanisms that are even less verifiable than first class-mail:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>a joint news release from CPSC and the company ...</li>
  <li>information on company external websites ...</li>
  <li>a national news conference and/or television or radio announcements;</li>
  <li>use of a firm’s social media presence to notify consumers of the recall, including Facebook, Google +, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Pinterest, company blogger networks, and blog announcements ...</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>And so on. I don't have that much experience with consumer-protection law, but I'd be surprised if it imposed any obligation to send certified mail or anything more certain than first-class mail.</p>

<p>Separate from the recall requirements, though, it may be that a contract with a dealership or the warranty provides some other requirements.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is there any legal standard that USPS first class mail doesn't qualify
  as legal proof of delivery?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/20001118220f3d89811027" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Firefighter's Institute v. City of St. Louis</em>, 220 F.3d 898, 903 (2000)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although this interpretation of Rule 45(b)(1) may allow service by
  other than personal delivery, it is not broad enough to include either
  fax or <strong>regular mail</strong> because the court cannot be assured that delivery
  has occurred.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(emphasis added).</p>

<p>Lexus's allegation as to its notice by first class mail might be refuted similarly. Lexus cannot prove that a recall notice was delivered to you.</p>

mail