Slashdot Mirror
No Harrier Jet for Pepsi Points
XDG writes "The guy who sued Pepsi for failing to deliver a Harrier jump jet after he raised money the buy the requisite amount of Pepsi points has just lost the first round of his court case. According to the judge, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial
actually offered consumers a Harrier jet." More details are at
CNN. " The worse part is that Rob and I had already booked it for the flight out to LWCE.
You drink the beer the commercial told you to drink, what? you're not suddenly surrounded by bikini models?
Nothing in the commercial ever makes the claim that women will appear for you. The commercial simply shows women appearing. It's a story, not a promise.
You buy that new SUV and try to drive it to the summit of your nearest snow capped mountain, you don't make it?
This one's admittedly a little tricker. There are several commercials of this type. One that I recall in particular has the guys on the mountain top asking each other "How are we gonna get back down?" I thought that was clever. Others have disclaimers. Still others simply show a vehicle on a mountain top, without showing it having been driven at all. I'd have to watch the whole commercial in question and then get back to you with my opinion. For the record, I don't recall ever seeing any that promised you that you could drive your SUV in that fashion. They may make you think you can do it, but unless they actually say so, they haven't crossed the line into false advertising.
You use that shampoo, but don't achieve orgasm in the shower.
You're way off base with this one. The commercial promises you an "organic" experience. That's "organic", not "orgasmic". Yes, there's a pun here -- the words are similar, and this is certainly not accidental. Also note that there's nothing in the commercial which states that the woman in question is having an orgasm. She's merely expressing pleasure. Finally, note that there's nothing which promises that the shampoo will cause you to have an orgasm. Maybe the woman in the commercial was having an orgasm, and maybe she wasn't -- but again, it's just a story, not a claim.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, it's about honesty. You can deceive with illusion; you can imply; you can tempt; you can entice; you can be as creative, clever and funny as you want. But you cannot lie with impunity.
You said it. "The whole thing is basically a scam..."
But what you write about the guy playing by the rules PEPSI set up, we say about the Pepsi for making contest rules then refusing to abide by them.
I got a couple t-shirts and a gym bag from the same promotion. It also took many months, as I recall. But nevertheless Pepsi honored its promotion.
What about the expensive jackets? Had I sent in a check for $100+ for a jacket, wouldn't I have a reasonable expectation of getting that jacket? I don't know anyone who got one, but neither do I know anyone who *didn't* despite meeting the terms of the offer.
So what's different about the Harrier jet? The ads treated it in a humorous fashion, but that isn't an indication that the offer wasn't serious. The very fact that Pepsi changed the point value from 7 million to 700 million after this guy made his claim says that Pepsi recognized that the claim was not completely unreasonable.
Why is it so unreasonable for him to take up Pepsi on what appears to be a bona fide offer?
To tell you the truth, Pepsi is getting a lot of negative PR from this mess. It could have offered to quietly settle the case for under $2M, enough to make the investors happy enough to back out of the suit, but instead they're trying to go back on their word. I see little difference between this and Microsoft vaporware.
(Could Pepsi had made a reasonable offer that the investors refused? I doubt it, since this was such a speculative investment to begin with. Better to accept a 100% return than gamble that a court won't uphold a 2000% return.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
>you seem to sympathize with the lawyer's view
Hardly. I never said that. I was originally arguing the point that someone sued McD because they were stupid and spilled hot coffee on themselves. I agree that most people have the good sense to keep something as hot as coffee away from their crotch. She didn't sue for millions, she tried to get compensation for medical expenses. The jury was pissed that McD seemed to not even care that they had 700 other complaints of injuries and were unwilling to do anything for a 79 yr old woman wo was obviously injured beyond a simple coffee burn 'scald' (did you read the link, she had to be hospitalized?).
McDonalds' supposed motivation for using a higher temp was not so sugar would dissolve, it was to make more money on coffee by stretching the grounds. I'm not defending the lawyer. I don't think the woman who had 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized was 'stupid' for trying to get medical expenses reimbursed from Mickey D's.
I like my coffee hot and I keep it away from my package. But, I would be pissed if my mom had to have surgery because a large company wanted to squeeze every cent out of a cup of coffee at the expense of reasonable safety (I'm sorry, coffee should be hot enough to blister my tongue, not dissolve the muscles in my leg) and then the bastards wouldn't make even a token settlement offer. That's what is stupid. When you deal with the public like a large company as this does, you have to be a little smarter than that.
I don't care if you disagree, violently or otherwise. I just want to clarify my statement of opinion since you seemed to read things into it that I never intended.
This thing is 50 points.
This thing is 100 points.
This thing is 250 points.
This thing is 7,000,000 points.
(Did you catch the joke? I missed it)
If you're trying to get someone's attention in our over advertised state you have to go over the edge, giving away a Harrier is definitely over the edge. Saying you're giving away a Harrier, and then not doing it, is trying to get the benefit without the cost, i.e. cheating.
(Sorry to be so argumentative, but it's Friday, been a long week, and this is cheaper and more fun than therapy)
+&x
Think of the implications.
You drink the beer the commercial told you to drink, what? you're not suddenly surrounded by bikini models? Go sue...
You buy that new SUV and try to drive it to the summit of your nearest snow capped mountain, you don't make it? Go sue.
You use that shampoo, but don't achieve orgasm in the shower. Go sue..
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Here are the "facts" of the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
:P
I fart in your general direction.
Applying your standard, any add that uses humor is misleading and should be banned. What, if I let my dog eat tacos he's going to turn into a hideous, but bi-lingual, abomination? Clearly misleading!
This is _NOT_ the same thing; (I assume you're referring to the Taco Bell ads..) they don't say that YOUR dog will speak spanish after eating their product, they say that _A_ dog did (and they don't even say that.)
Saying "this happened when we did x" is _NOT_ the same as saying "If you buy XXX of our product, we will give you XXX." The first one is a tall tale, the second is a promise.
You couldn't take the Taco Bell people to court if your dog doesn't speak spanish, because they never said it would; pepsico said that if you accumulate 7,000,000 points, then you get a jet.
Pepsi broke their promise, and they should have to pay.
Okay thats like totally screwed. Oh Sure a normal person really has no need for e jet.. but don't OFFER it if yer not gonna follow your promise.
...and if your real estate agent accidentally writes down $15,000 instead of $150,000 as the selling price for your home, I'll demand that you sell it to me for that price too.
Pepsi made a mistake. The only question is the cost of the consequence of that mistake. Giving the jet or cash equivalent is not a reasonable cost, especially since the guy could have checked with Pepsi that the offer was bonafide but did not -- because he expressly wanted to get to this point and win the case. He's a parasite, screw him.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Reminds me of that girl who sued to get into the Citadel (US Male-only military school). She was obviously not REALLY interested in going to the school, since she quit after her first day when she finally did get in.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Not flaming, just explaining:
For an even number of samples, the median is the arithmetic average of the middle two samples in a sorted list. For an odd number of samples, the median is the middle value in the sorted list.
So, in this case, the median is 50.
The mode is the most commonly occuring value in the list. Again, this is 50.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
I think the Harrier jet at the end of the commerical was really cool, however it shouldn't have said 7 million points on the screen. Pepsi should have written an amount of points that exceeded the retail price of the jet, like all the other Pepsi stuff. So, say they make it 240 million points. That way, either no one tries to call their bluff, or they can actually deliver on it with no complaints.
:)
However, the number would seem a bit extreme for a commercial
As other people have pointed out, if this guy can raise $700,000 from private investors for something this ludicrous, he can't be that stupid. So that rules out the possiblity that he is a childish little brat that doesn't get it that he can't get the jet. The other possiblity is that he knew all along (or at least pretty much all along) that you couldn't get the jet, and that it was just a joke.
In that case, the whole thing is basically a scam. What do you think he has done with that 700 grand? There's a good possibility that he is making a pretty penny off the interest. As far as him suing Pepsi, he's trying to make a point and/or an ass of himself. I think he made his point when he filed the lawsuit in the first place. I doubt Pepsi or Marlboro or any other company that does the points thing will make such a mistake again. The only reason for continuing the suit is to try and make some more money by making an ass out of yourself.
I'll bet you that when he went to those investors, he didn't say "I'm gonna make a 100 to 1 profit on this by selling the jet and you'll be even richer than you already are!" He probably went to them and said something along the lines of, "We can sue Pepsi for lots of money for this, so I need you to at least pretend to pony up that 700 grand, and to pay my legal fees, and we'll split the settlement and all be even richer, and who cares if we make ourselves look like noxious smelling assholes in the process!"
Making a living by suing other people is one of the most unrespectable employments possible. More so if you're filing ludicrous lawsuits, and even more so if you're not a friggin' lawyer.
-Cheetah
That lost a similar case, where the company was offering expensive holidays, etc, if you bought their merchandise. A lot of customers bought, and didn't get anything, so sued. The judge ruled there, that what was offered was offered, joke or no joke.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
>Did he really believe that pepsi would give him a harrier jet?
God, I hope not. I find it a little easier to beleive that he just wants to play games with Pepsi and see if he can get some kind of settlement. It's easier to imagine that this guy is independently (sp?) wealthy, has a spare $700 K and some 'lawyer friends' who have nothing better to do than mess with a huge conglomerate than to beleive some twit who is stupid enough to think that a $23 million military jet could be had by collecting Pepsi points and that this moron could actually raise 700,000.
I remember when I first saw that ad and I got the 'joke' but I also reacted that it was kind of stupid to show a kid taking off from his lawn in a harrier, show a point value, and not have a disclaimer. I remember thinking, "I bet some idiot sues because they saw this ad and think its real". This guy might have thought the same thing and decided to go rattle someone's cage over at Pepsi hoping to get some stupid settlement.
Military vehicles sold to the public have to be "demilitarized" (e.g., your MIG fighter won't come with cannon or cannon mounts). I believe some vehicles, by their nature, are considered impossible to render demilitarized and can't be sold to the public.
:-)
It's similar to the logic that allows you to buy surplus small arms (since they can be used for non-military purposes), but not surplus artillery pieces. Although it would be interesting to go deer hunting with a small cannon...
A classic example is probably tanks and perhaps armored personnel carriers. A tank can do a *lot* of damage even if it lacks a functional gun, as a rogue tank in San Diego(?) showed, and the cops find it impossible to stop. When's the last time you saw a tank for sale?
A Harrier jet probably falls under the same restrictions. It's a fighter in active use, unlike the aircraft popular among high-tech CEOs, and on top of that it's a VTOL. The jet wash alone might be considered a weapon.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Wasn't saying they should give everyone a jet... this guy is the only one who tried to claim a Harrier during the period they were running that commercial, no? So give one to him and him only... everyone else missed their chance. And if they decide to advertise that they're giving away Harriers again, they might want to jack the Pepsi-point value up to 250 million or whatever...
B.S. Pepsi should have said specifically "this is a joke". They didn't. After I saw that commercial there was definitely some question as to whether or not it was real (No I am not an idiot, just saying "reasonable doubt", were it to apply to this case, exists). Advertisers take too many liberties in establishing their hooks, Pepsi should cough up the prize or it's cash equivelent, just for being so stupid. Expecting "Joe" to know how much a jump jet costs is ludicrous. My guess is that Pepsi has much better lawyers.
+&x
I beg to differ. My 80 dollar Nikes most certainly DID make me do something:
:)
I cried when I got the credit card statement.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
If Pepsi intended this as a joke, they should either have had an asterisk and an explicit disclaimer announcing this fact, or have made the number of pepsi points be something equivalent to the cost of a jet. If they had said "get a Harrier for only 250 million pepsi points" rather than a mere 7 million, they wouldn't have had this problem.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I don't see what's so unreasonable about it... sure, jets are expensive, but the guy had to get seven million points for it. Anyone that dedicated deserves the thing. If Pepsi didn't want to give away a Harrier, they shouldn't have offered one. If I was them, I'd get him the jet and write it off as an advertising expense... I know if they did, I'd be buying all the Pepsi I could get my hands on next time they offered to give away a Harrier... I really want a Harrier. They rock.
How much does a Harrier cost, anyway? And what's Pepsi's annual net?
The judge ruled that what you advertise is what you sell. The man was forced to part with the car for fruit.
The moral of the story? Jokes in advertising are fine, but don't put them in the price tag.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I believe the word "methinks" appears in a play by William Shakespeare! Though I don't think the Bard ever used "drinken" or "Cokeocola".
Sigh. Another reason you should not watch TV. False advertising. I think Pepsi should lose this one. There are disclaimers on *everything* these days. If Pepsi was too lazy to put one in their contest rules, they should be held liable. They made a contract with this person - now they're trying to get out? The moral of this story is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
On the one hand, I agree that no reasonable person could expect delivery of the jet since it's restricted military hardware.
On the other hand, I'm getting very tired of the hyperbole in current ads. It seems that the current cycle of hyperbole started with the Pepsi ad promising a Harrier jet.
I also think that the fact that the prize was a Harrier jet has muddled the judge's thinking. To draw an analogy, consider a Taco Bell ad that promised 10 tacos for $5, 100 tacos for $30, and 100,000 tacos for $1000. No reasonable person would ever buy 100k tacos, right? Wrong; it could be used as a promotion on large college campuses. (Free tacos for everyone if you come by our kiosk for information on time-share long distance calling!)
So, while I think the first guy was a bit opportunistic, I hope that he wins the cash equivalence just so the ad agencies will be more careful about making "just possible" claims. As countless other people have pointed out, Pepsi could have chosen a different point value of the jet -- and in fact later ads did show a much higher point value.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Right. No "objective person" would believe that they had won the Publisher's Clearinghouse jackpot after receiving bulk-rate junk mail with a lot of "if's" in it either, but PC got sued and changed some tactics. I don't know the outcome of the suit, but this one is different. They literally said exactly how many points it takes to win a Harrier. The point total, being a very large number, was intended to sound real.
This sounds like a simple case of Marketroid screw-up followed by Lawyerbot cover-up.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
> Howcome americans insist on putting disclaimers on everything? Oh, that's right, your legal system sucks! ;-) In most other contries people don't even attempt these kinds of lawsuits because the jugde will laugh them out of the courtroom.
To put it as succinctly as possible - it's because our society values money above most anything else. So as a side-effect we get large numbers of what I call the "something for nothing" crowd. That in turn causes corporations to seek a legal remedy to protect their assets, which comes in the form of excessively dense legal precidents.
Capitalism is built on the premise that enlightened self-interest will lead to the highest possible productivity. Our legal and social systems are heavily influenced by that idea. Hence, our legal system does not "suck" any more so than your legal system sucks. It's tailored for a specific purpose.
Now, whether you think this is right or not is another story...
--
However, I'd like to reiterate what I've read in other comments:
IMHO, I think the guy should be able to get his jet. I realize the ridiculous nature of the instance that he own the thing, but I also realize that, they did advertise it, and if he has met the qualifications, he should get it. It'll teach Pepsi to stop being so foolish, and hopefully other corporations will learn too. If he is restricted from obtaining such a vehicle/item, I think that some sort of prize/compensation be awarded him (although, seemingly contrary to the thought carried by this comment, I don't think he needs to be award the $73M [yes, I realize that, if he gets the jet, he'll have it anyway], b/c I don't think anyone needs $73M [yes, I also realize that many in this world have much more than $73M])
Insert mind here.
Take Nintendo for example. I was looking at the box for the game Pokémon Snap. As you can see, the box features the lens of the camera with various game characters around it. If you look at the back of the box, you'll see a disclaimer: "This is a game pak, not a camera".
Well, DUH.
A $23M jet for $700,000. I'm sure that the IRS would be all over him for that especially if it's considered a prize.
Even still, I'm sure that he would not be able to afford to fly the thing, with fuel, maintanence, what not.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I don't disagree, just wanted to point out the flaw in your McDonalds coffee example. IIRC, the McDonalds in question got repeated complaints that the coffee they served was so hot that it was melting through the styrofoam cups, and they did nothing. This woman did not spill coffee on herself because she was stupid. The coffee melted through her cup and caused 3rd degree burns on her legs. Little bit different from the "woman burns self with hot coffee, McD pays $$million" sound bite that ended up on the nightly news.
So, what if I had no intention of flying it? Maybe I want to use it as a lawn ornament, or sell tickets to have your picture taken sitting in the cockpit at the state fair, or sell it to an aviation museum?
I know this is all silly, but no more silly than a company like Pepsico leaving themselves exposed to this kind of lawsuit, when there would have been really easy ways to avoid it (disclaimer, point value much greater than 7 million).
Pepsico cleared $2.5 billion last year. They could easily shed $20 million to make this guy go away. But it creates a precedent. Plus, this is probably good free advertising for Pepsi (don't think they wouldn't cut their losses and hush this up if they thought it would really hurt them publicly).
I bet he is left high-and-dry with something less than $700,000 worth of useless pepsi stuff. Something tells me that he won't get much continued support from his backers after this setback and Pepsi won't be much inclined to offer a settlement to avoid an appeal that may not happen. Schmuck.
Hah. Nice try, but since the melting point of a styrofoam cup is about 150 degrees (IIRC) and the hottest a coffee could ever get is, ooh, maybe 103 absolute tops, it's hardly likely to be the truth now, is it?
This a 'Merkin site, we use 'Merkin units. Find yourself a fahrenheit-celsius converter and come back.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
1) Companies have a right to use humour in their commercials. Pepsi hats, jackets, bags, skateboards, etc are OBVIOUSLY not the on the same level as a FREAKIN JET. Any moron can see that. Yes. ANY MORON.
Well, yes, except this wasn't simply a commercial. It was a promotion with points redemable for prizes. The laws tend to be strict in such cases to make it difficult for the company to say, "we were kidding". The underlying principle here is that the expense of a disclaimer in such a case is trivial to the overall cost of the promotion, so why not the disclaimer?
2) You people are the reason people who make pet shampoo have to put warning like "Don't microwave pet to dry" and their bottles. "But it didn't say!" Hey! I got this knife, and it didn't say not to stab anyone! I'm gonna sue!
Again, the purpose of a promotion is to give things away or offered in redemption for some premium. It is reasonable the presume that the things depicted as being given away actually will be. It would not be reasonable to presume that one could actually FLY the jet.
3) You're supporting frivolous law suits. This man KNEW it was a joke. Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that he thought he was going to get the plane? Hell no, he even raised money for the law suit BEFORE TRYING TO GET THE PLANE!
Here,you may have a point. If Pepsico can show that he THOUGHT it was a joke, they can call him on it. However, I see nothing wrong in raising money for a suit to collect something that Pepsico could reasonably be expected to DENY having offered. This is not the same as thinking it was a joke, just an error in Pepsico's judgement.
4) If you guys had your way every comedian would have to stop at the end of each joke and explain that it was just a joke.
No, clearly from context, one knows that comedians in a club or on TV are telling jokes and are not to be taken seriously.
5) I'm going to go sue segfault for their articles!!! Who cares if they're obviously bogus, I'm too stupid to realize it!
Except they're not offering you anything. Pepsico was.
6) The taco bell comercial where the dog is having a lawn sale where everything is $.39.... I mailed in $.39 for the Baby Grand piano.. I didn't get it!! LAWYER!!!
Here there is a depiction of a lawn sale, but no indication that it is open to YOU.
Obviously I think Pepsico goofed on this one, and should cough up the valye of the Jet, if they can't produce the jet itself.
Oh, and regarding the lady who was too "stupid" to know not to hold a cup of coffee between her legs in a moving car... apparantly she first tried to collect medical expenses, and when McD brushed her off she sued on the grounds that the coffee was too hot to consume. Apparantly, in the state where the event took place, food and beverages sold in a restaurant must be fit for immediate consumption, and had this been the case, here burns would not have been so severe. Perhaps she was willing to risk a minor burn, but not 3rd degree burns.
In Liberty, Rene