3 ms·

Also in the running: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/the-bottle-cap-snafu-that-nearly-cost-pepsi-32-billion-1.6305749 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undert

• permo-w 4y ago
  sounds like pepsi got off lightly
• II2II 4y ago
  Given the phrasing of the article, it sounds like an "honest" mistake in Pepsi's case. The intent to distribute two prizes likely means the number was predetermined or that it was to be selected from a small pool of numbers that had a low run. On the other hand, the Hoover example was based upon pure dishonesty. They made a claim, put in a bunch of rules to disqualify people, took steps to slant the rules in their favour, then hoped it would be enough to win the numbers game. Hope because they were relying upon assumptions that were very much out of their control.