4 ms·

I don't think you're correct. Bait and Switch advertising is not legal and the FTC will go after those that do that kind of thing.

bilboa 5y ago
There are other reasons for deciding not to sell a house after advertising it other than pulling a bait-and-switch scam. Maybe the seller changed their mind about selling it, or realized the house is worth more than they advertised it for. The mere fact that someone placed an ad for their house doesn't legally obligate them to sell it. I'm not a lawyer so don't know what exactly would legally be considered a bait-and-switch, but I presume you'd have to show that the plan all along was to use the initial offer as bait in order to draw a buyer into some other deal.
- billytetrud 5y ago
  While you're absolutely right, I don't see how its relevant in this case. >you'd have to show that the plan all along was to use the initial offer as bait in order to draw a buyer into some other deal. I mean, its pretty obvious that their plan is to use the excitement of the harrier jet to lure people into buying pepsi and pepsi points. The question really becomes: might a reasonable person believe that they're actually selling the jet. I would say its quite likely. I think this is bad precendent.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Bait and Switch advertising is not legal and the FTC will go after those that do that kind of thing. Yes, but electing not to sell a unique item at an advertised price when a concrete offer is received is not the same thing: ---quote--- How does the FTC define "bait and switch" advertising? It's illegal to advertise a product when the company has no intention of selling that item, but instead plans to sell a consumer something else, usually at a higher price. For more information, ask the FTC for its Guides Against Bait Advertising. ---end quote--- https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/advertising-faqs-guide-small-business https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/adv... ---quote--- Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised. ---end quote--- 16 USC § 238.0, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69e59fd0c1f4966cfdf64fc1201fba73&mc=true&node=pt16.1.238&rgn=div5 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69e59fd0c1f4966cfd...
- billytetrud 5y ago
  > electing not to sell a unique item at an advertised price when a concrete offer is received is not the same thing I disagree. I think it very much is the same thing. Unless they had other reasons (other than that they didn't want to honor their advertisement). Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I think it very much is the same thing. It doesn't fit the regulatory definition for two key reasons: (1) the regulatory definition of bait advertising turns on intent at the time of advertising, not decisions which happen later. (2) the regulatory definition also turns on the intent being not to sell the thing adveritsed; even if the intent in advance is to sell it on different terms, that is not “bait advertising” (it may br prohibited by some other law or rule in some cases.) > Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case. Even if you could construe the ad as an offer to sell anything, it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else. (And, of course, the Court already ruled in the case, in adjudicating a different claim to which the same question was relevant, that it couldn’t be reasonably viewed as an offer at all.)
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      1) Ok. And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet. So I don't see your point. Still seems to apply at the time of advertising. 2) They did indeed not ever intend to sell the thing advertised. So again, what are you talking about? I dunno man, I guess I just disagree.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet And the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward. Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?

bilboa 5y ago

There are other reasons for deciding not to sell a house after advertising it other than pulling a bait-and-switch scam. Maybe the seller changed their mind about selling it, or realized the house is worth more than they advertised it for. The mere fact that someone placed an ad for their house doesn't legally obligate them to sell it. I'm not a lawyer so don't know what exactly would legally be considered a bait-and-switch, but I presume you'd have to show that the plan all along was to use the initial offer as bait in order to draw a buyer into some other deal.

billytetrud 5y ago
While you're absolutely right, I don't see how its relevant in this case. >you'd have to show that the plan all along was to use the initial offer as bait in order to draw a buyer into some other deal. I mean, its pretty obvious that their plan is to use the excitement of the harrier jet to lure people into buying pepsi and pepsi points. The question really becomes: might a reasonable person believe that they're actually selling the jet. I would say its quite likely. I think this is bad precendent.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Bait and Switch advertising is not legal and the FTC will go after those that do that kind of thing. Yes, but electing not to sell a unique item at an advertised price when a concrete offer is received is not the same thing: ---quote--- How does the FTC define "bait and switch" advertising? It's illegal to advertise a product when the company has no intention of selling that item, but instead plans to sell a consumer something else, usually at a higher price. For more information, ask the FTC for its Guides Against Bait Advertising. ---end quote--- https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/advertising-faqs-guide-small-business https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/adv... ---quote--- Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised. ---end quote--- 16 USC § 238.0, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69e59fd0c1f4966cfdf64fc1201fba73&mc=true&node=pt16.1.238&rgn=div5 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69e59fd0c1f4966cfd...

billytetrud 5y ago
> electing not to sell a unique item at an advertised price when a concrete offer is received is not the same thing I disagree. I think it very much is the same thing. Unless they had other reasons (other than that they didn't want to honor their advertisement). Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I think it very much is the same thing. It doesn't fit the regulatory definition for two key reasons: (1) the regulatory definition of bait advertising turns on intent at the time of advertising, not decisions which happen later. (2) the regulatory definition also turns on the intent being not to sell the thing adveritsed; even if the intent in advance is to sell it on different terms, that is not “bait advertising” (it may br prohibited by some other law or rule in some cases.) > Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case. Even if you could construe the ad as an offer to sell anything, it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else. (And, of course, the Court already ruled in the case, in adjudicating a different claim to which the same question was relevant, that it couldn’t be reasonably viewed as an offer at all.)
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    1) Ok. And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet. So I don't see your point. Still seems to apply at the time of advertising. 2) They did indeed not ever intend to sell the thing advertised. So again, what are you talking about? I dunno man, I guess I just disagree.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > And the intent at time of advertising was always not to see the jet And the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward. Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?