Hacker News Reader

Comment by al2o3cr | Hacker News Reader

So it wasn't totally implausible to think they could deliver a jump jet in exchange for enough points. :)

For anyone who doesn't remember Pepsi ads from the mid-90's: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/1996-man-sues-pepsi-for-not-giv...

>The campaign was simple, reported CBS News correspondent John Blackstone. Buy Pepsi products, collect points from Pepsi labels and claim prizes like t-shirts, sunglasses, or - for 7 million points - a Harrier Jet.

>In the end, Leonard's lawsuit fizzled out. A court granted a summary judgment in favor of Pepsi and ruled that, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier Jet."

It seems somewhat ridiculous that he managed to convince five people to "invest" in his idea. I'm surprised the article didn't touch on what seems to be the larger point: Don't advertise things you don't sell. The ad was dishonest not because people actually expected a harrier jet, but because it tried to make a non-existent association between something "cool" and its product.

This is of course something very hard to legislate, but it still feels dishonest to me, more so than almost any ad seen today.

> It seems somewhat ridiculous that he managed to convince five people to "invest" in his idea

I don’t know about that. Have you seen some of the startups that get funded?

Do you want to invest in my new Crypto Cola?

When's the Colacoin ICO and can I send you 10 million dollars?

Here's the legal case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

So if there is no liability for lying in ads, then why should there be any recourse for lying in reporting "news" ?

Sadly, looking at the future from the the precedence of this 1999 case, it makes Benedict Arnold a joke comparing to what Judge Kimba Wood did to the future of this country.

There is liability for lying in ads, but the ruling was that no reasonable person could watch that ad and conclude they were seriously offering a Harrier Jet.

And there is liability for lying in reporting news.

Why not? $260MM for Jet versus $450MM winning in powerball lottery. I never heard Lottery officials saying "noone would reasonably request us to pay them $450 millions for a dollar worth ticket".

And who am I as a viewer of said advertise to decide or come to "reasonable" conclusion whether company can pay it out or not?? Clearly this man should win. Promise is a promise.

It's not unreasonable because of the price tag, it's unreasonable because depicts a child flying a Harrier jet to school, saying "sure beats the bus!". Here's the quote: "In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious even if, as plaintiff contends, the jet is capable of being acquired 'in a form that eliminates [its] potential for military use."

It should also be noted civilians cannot even purchase a working Harrier Jet, for any price, legally.

Thanks. So once he lost his suit on those grounds, he should immediately file a lawsuit (possibly class-action) for fraud, false advertising and deceiving current and potential clients of Pepsi, since Pepsi lawyers admitted clearly that it is even impossible to deliver winning award to the winner, something they failed to reveal in the fine print. Unless of course Pepsi can prove that this commercial did not bring them any changes in profit.

Did you read the link? The suit WAS for fraud. And that quote was from the judge's ruling, not from Pepsi's lawyers. Here's a link to the actual decision, I suggest you read it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=140108835179928... . It goes through the conclusions of the case and quite thoroughly explains why the claim of fraud is wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com