Pepsi, Where's my Jet? (2022)

An amusing Documentary on a promotion by Pepsi, and the resulting lawsuit.

An amusing Documentary on a "Win a Harrier" promotion by Pepsi, and the resulting lawsuit. Pepsi claims it was a joke, but removed disclaimers and made it look attainable. The side stories about the kid, his mentor, and scumbag Lawyer Avanatti all make the 4 episodes go by very quickly.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2022-11-14

Facts[edit | edit source]

In the mid-90s PepsiCo aired a series of commercials around a points/loyatly awards that could buy you goods. At the top end was an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet for 7M points (a $23M value) -- no disclaimer, and priced attractive enough to get kids daydreaming and generate buzz around the campaign.

John Leonard, a 21-year-old business student in 1996, started doing the math, and along with a $.10/point buyout, found a partner to pony up $700K for his business plan and he tried to buy the Jet and make the money back at Airshows and leasing the jet.

Instead of paying up, or offering fair value, and so on, PepsiCo argued that the commercial was a joke, and sued John. So Leonard filed a countersuit in Miami accusing PepsiCo of breach of contract, fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and misleading advertising. Then hired scumbad celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti to represent him.

The Series (Documentary) got 100/92 on RottenTomatoes, so both reviewers and viewers liked it. It was good pacing, interesting, and a nice story. We binge watched in a couple of hours, and my wife isn't a huge documentary fan, and loved it.

💭 Democrat Justice
Pepsico got the case transferred to a federal court in Manhattan (famous Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. case), found a Clinton Appointed Judge (judge Kimba Wood), and basically got the case thrown out as frivolous... it was all a joke, and everyone knew it. The fact that Wood never allowed a Jury to hear the case, means justice was once again blocked from happening by another Democrat "Judge". There was a ton of evidence that supported the kids case, like: Pepsi had run a disclaimer in Canada but removed it in the U.S. Pepsi had intentionally lowered the amount from 700,000,000 points to 7,000,000 points -- which they claim was just to make it more readable Pepsi ran later ads to muddy up the waters and help their case, where they the price back up, and added (Just Kidding) underneath the promo (a ex post facto disclaimer) Pepsi had a history of deceptive promotions (like had happened in the Philipines which lead to violence) But Democrat judge Kimba Wood ruled that, "No objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet"... because she said so, despite the fact that's actually what Pepsi had done, and many reasonable people thought the offer was real. She never let a jury of Jonn's peers decide whether it was reasonable or not. Like they try to do with the Constitution; Democrat Judges want to re-invent what the letter of the contract means -- even when it says the opposite. And as usual, the elites got to screw the little guy, while the Democrats pretend they aren't on the side of the elites (and whoever donates the most to their campaign).

🔗 More

Reviews
List of things I’ve watched, read, seen, cooked, ate, heard about, and so on.

TV Reviews
A list of TV Show Reviews.

Netflix
A wacky corporate culture, far left programming, some interesting shows, and some silly corporate policies/actions.

🔗 Links

Wikipedia:Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

Tags: Reviews TV Netflix Documentary