6 ms·

And then, of course, there's the time when Pepsi almost had an air force, albeit briefly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wikip

And then, of course, there's the time when Pepsi almost had an air force, albeit briefly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

daeken 7y ago
I'm still bothered by this case. While I don't think that PepsiCo should've been forced to buy and then sell (for points) a Harrier jet, the fact that there were no consequences for the ad just kind of baffles me. If you look at any ad targeting youth markets from the time period, they had the same nonchalance; sure, they're not pitching a jet, but that just seems like a terrible argument.
- pjc50 7y ago
  I'm not sure what think is wrong with the ad besides making an offer they didn't want to make good on? The offer bit is a great opportunity to cite Carbolic Smoke Ball https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Bal...
  - michaelt 7y ago
    I'm not sure about the Pepsi ad, but in basically every false advertising case the company accused goes for the "no reasonable person would believe that" defence. For example, Apple advertises an iPhone as "twice as fast for half the price"? They say no reasonable person would believe that [1] Or Vitaminwater says the drink "could promote healthy joints, support optimal immune function, and reduce the risk of eye disease"? They claim no reasonable person would believe vitaminwater was a healthy drink [2] I mean, this seems like a hole in the law that you can drive a truck through. [1] https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust/ https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust/ [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-glacau-vitaminwater-misleading-advertising-lawsuit-2014-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-glacau-vitaminwate...
    - endorphone 7y ago
      Regarding the Apple case, note that Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. That wasn't a corporate statement, and indeed another of the defenses was that any claims about the product were fair and accurate. This is just a standard legal tactic to have every option available (including puffery) if the suit moves forward. And for that claim any reasonable judge would have disagreed but they can include it if they want to really pursue it. And that lawsuit was dismissed because the limiting factor were flaws with the AT&T network, not the device. I agree with the overwhelming sentiment of your claim, but at the same time there are consumers who go out of their way to be "mislead" because it can be a profitable venture.
      - michaelt 7y ago
        Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. Ah, the old "We think this statement is true, and also we don't think any reasonable person would think this statement is true" defence.
    - yellowstuff 7y ago
      It's similar to the question "Can you sue someone for that?" Sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything, but you probably won't win stupid cases. Any competent lawyer is going to reach for every available defense that seems vaguely plausible, but they're unlikely to win. A quick search makes it look like although Coca Cola only had to pay a $1.2M fine in this case the defense that no reasonable person would believe their advertising was rejected. > Coca-Cola fought back arguing that no reasonable consumer could be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage but last year a federal judge rejected this defense. https://www.truthinadvertising.org/tina-org-objects-unhealthy-vitaminwater-settlement/ https://www.truthinadvertising.org/tina-org-objects-unhealth...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > I'm not sure what think is wrong with the ad besides making an offer they didn't want to make good on? Personally, I think that's always wrong and this should be by default judged in favour of the customer taking them up on an offer. Advertisements aren't random remarks thrown off the cuff.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > the fact that there were no consequences for the ad It was obviously a joke. No reasonable person would not see that.
  - burfog 7y ago
    Art Nalls has bought three of them so far, including a trainer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PHcdn8R4d4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PHcdn8R4d4 http://artnalls.com/ http://artnalls.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nalls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nalls https://brobible.com/life/article/ret-usmc-art-nalls-harrier-jet/ https://brobible.com/life/article/ret-usmc-art-nalls-harrier... https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/he-didnt-retire-he-started-his-own-harrier-squadron-1706212868 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/he-didnt-retire-he-started...
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      So what? Just because someone can afford one doesn't mean it's not clearly a joke that it isn't really the prize for a soft drink competition. The court agreed.
      - burfog 7y ago
        It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one. It might be different if Pepsi had offered a flying unicorn, a human slave, psychic powers, a teleporter, a time machine, a genie with 3 wishes, a seat in congress, or a fully operational death star. The best argument you could make for Pepsi's failure would be that the jet was more restricted at the time. If acquisition hit legal difficulties, the judge should have forced Pepsi to make a substitution of greater cost. It should hurt. For example the Boeing 747 is a real jet that could be purchased freely at the time.
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        > It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one. It was tested in court. They didn't agree this was reasonable. I don't think it would be reasonable either. Tech people think law is like maths with absolutes - it's not - there's a big test in law of 'come on is that really what a reasonable person would think - use your common sense' and this fails that.
- GuB-42 7y ago
  It was obviously a joke, that's what the court decided. I'm kind of upset when some company does something that requires a tiny bit of common sense and faces consequences on the grounds that people with heads full of air get the wrong idea. We are humans, with judgment, not mindless robots, and I believe society should acknowledge that. Sure, here, the target is high school kids, but what is the risk? It's not like one of them is going to buy a jet fighter. If there is a problem with that ad, it is that it encourages an unhealthy diet by making kids drink Pepsi. Also note that here, we are talking about a guy who was able to build a scheme that is far from obvious. He even wrote a $700k certified cheque for that. Two possibilities: either Leonard was too insane to handle that kind of money, or, more likely, he tried to exploit an loophole for profit. In some countries, that could be considered fraud.

And then, of course, there's the time when Pepsi almost had an air force, albeit briefly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

daeken 7y ago

I'm still bothered by this case. While I don't think that PepsiCo should've been forced to buy and then sell (for points) a Harrier jet, the fact that there were no consequences for the ad just kind of baffles me. If you look at any ad targeting youth markets from the time period, they had the same nonchalance; sure, they're not pitching a jet, but that just seems like a terrible argument.

pjc50 7y ago
I'm not sure what think is wrong with the ad besides making an offer they didn't want to make good on? The offer bit is a great opportunity to cite Carbolic Smoke Ball https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Bal...
- michaelt 7y ago
  I'm not sure about the Pepsi ad, but in basically every false advertising case the company accused goes for the "no reasonable person would believe that" defence. For example, Apple advertises an iPhone as "twice as fast for half the price"? They say no reasonable person would believe that [1] Or Vitaminwater says the drink "could promote healthy joints, support optimal immune function, and reduce the risk of eye disease"? They claim no reasonable person would believe vitaminwater was a healthy drink [2] I mean, this seems like a hole in the law that you can drive a truck through. [1] https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust/ https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust/ [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-glacau-vitaminwater-misleading-advertising-lawsuit-2014-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-glacau-vitaminwate...
  - endorphone 7y ago
    Regarding the Apple case, note that Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. That wasn't a corporate statement, and indeed another of the defenses was that any claims about the product were fair and accurate. This is just a standard legal tactic to have every option available (including puffery) if the suit moves forward. And for that claim any reasonable judge would have disagreed but they can include it if they want to really pursue it. And that lawsuit was dismissed because the limiting factor were flaws with the AT&T network, not the device. I agree with the overwhelming sentiment of your claim, but at the same time there are consumers who go out of their way to be "mislead" because it can be a profitable venture.
    - michaelt 7y ago
      Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. Ah, the old "We think this statement is true, and also we don't think any reasonable person would think this statement is true" defence.
  - yellowstuff 7y ago
    It's similar to the question "Can you sue someone for that?" Sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything, but you probably won't win stupid cases. Any competent lawyer is going to reach for every available defense that seems vaguely plausible, but they're unlikely to win. A quick search makes it look like although Coca Cola only had to pay a $1.2M fine in this case the defense that no reasonable person would believe their advertising was rejected. > Coca-Cola fought back arguing that no reasonable consumer could be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage but last year a federal judge rejected this defense. https://www.truthinadvertising.org/tina-org-objects-unhealthy-vitaminwater-settlement/ https://www.truthinadvertising.org/tina-org-objects-unhealth...
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > I'm not sure what think is wrong with the ad besides making an offer they didn't want to make good on? Personally, I think that's always wrong and this should be by default judged in favour of the customer taking them up on an offer. Advertisements aren't random remarks thrown off the cuff.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> the fact that there were no consequences for the ad It was obviously a joke. No reasonable person would not see that.
- burfog 7y ago
  Art Nalls has bought three of them so far, including a trainer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PHcdn8R4d4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PHcdn8R4d4 http://artnalls.com/ http://artnalls.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nalls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nalls https://brobible.com/life/article/ret-usmc-art-nalls-harrier-jet/ https://brobible.com/life/article/ret-usmc-art-nalls-harrier... https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/he-didnt-retire-he-started-his-own-harrier-squadron-1706212868 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/he-didnt-retire-he-started...
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    So what? Just because someone can afford one doesn't mean it's not clearly a joke that it isn't really the prize for a soft drink competition. The court agreed.
    - burfog 7y ago
      It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one. It might be different if Pepsi had offered a flying unicorn, a human slave, psychic powers, a teleporter, a time machine, a genie with 3 wishes, a seat in congress, or a fully operational death star. The best argument you could make for Pepsi's failure would be that the jet was more restricted at the time. If acquisition hit legal difficulties, the judge should have forced Pepsi to make a substitution of greater cost. It should hurt. For example the Boeing 747 is a real jet that could be purchased freely at the time.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > It's a real physical item. Pepsi has lots of money. It is thus reasonable to expect that Pepsi would provide one. It was tested in court. They didn't agree this was reasonable. I don't think it would be reasonable either. Tech people think law is like maths with absolutes - it's not - there's a big test in law of 'come on is that really what a reasonable person would think - use your common sense' and this fails that.
GuB-42 7y ago
It was obviously a joke, that's what the court decided. I'm kind of upset when some company does something that requires a tiny bit of common sense and faces consequences on the grounds that people with heads full of air get the wrong idea. We are humans, with judgment, not mindless robots, and I believe society should acknowledge that. Sure, here, the target is high school kids, but what is the risk? It's not like one of them is going to buy a jet fighter. If there is a problem with that ad, it is that it encourages an unhealthy diet by making kids drink Pepsi. Also note that here, we are talking about a guy who was able to build a scheme that is far from obvious. He even wrote a $700k certified cheque for that. Two possibilities: either Leonard was too insane to handle that kind of money, or, more likely, he tried to exploit an loophole for profit. In some countries, that could be considered fraud.