In the 1990s, amidst the intense rivalry known as the “Cola Wars,” consumers passionately expressed their allegiance to either Coca-Cola or Pepsi. During this period, a seemingly lighthearted marketing initiative by Pepsi escalated into an unforeseen legal dispute.
Central to this narrative is John Leonard, a 21-year-old business student who recognized a potential advantage in Pepsi’s bold points-for-prizes initiative and vigorously pursued what he considered his legitimate reward: A Harrier jump jet.
During this era, Pepsi thrived with its bold advertising campaigns featuring celebrities. From dancing bears to appearances by icons like Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Britney Spears, Pepsi positioned itself as the cooler, younger alternative to Coke.
Even so, the Pepsi Points promotion would unintentionally thrust the company into an unusual legal battle.
The Pepsi Points scheme allowed consumers to collect labels from Pepsi products and exchange them for branded merchandise. Modest prizes included a hat for sixty points and a denim jacket for four hundred.
#OTD in 1999, a judge ruled against a man who had sued Pepsi to claim a Marine AV-8 Harrier II offered as a prize in a 1996 commercial. The man had accumulated the 7,000,000 "Pepsi Points" needed to win the jet featured in the ad, but Pepsi said the offer was an obvious joke. pic.twitter.com/PKGyjQxVc1
— U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) August 5, 2024
However, Leonard was caught off guard by a commercial promoting the campaign. In tongue-in-cheek style, the ad suggested that anyone who amassed seven million points could claim a brand-new Harrier jump jet.
The commercial featured a computer-animated jet landing on a school campus, with the actor quipping, “Sure beats the bus.”
Pepsi executives assumed the astronomical points requirement would render the jet unattainable, never expecting anyone to take the offer seriously. But they underestimated Leonard’s determination. Unlike most viewers who dismissed the jet as a joke, Leonard saw it as a legitimate challenge.
“People say, ‘Didn’t you want a t-shirt?’ and I say, ‘Well, when there’s a Harrier out there for seven million Pepsi Points, why not aim your sights a little higher?’” Leonard later remarked.
Leonard quickly realized that purchasing seven million cans or bottles of Pepsi was financially unfeasible. However, he discovered a loophole: a disclaimer in the ad revealed that Pepsi Points could be purchased for ten cents each.
With this information, Leonard did the math and concluded that he could secure the necessary points for $700,000—a steal compared to the estimated $23 million value of a Harrier jet.
Pepsi’s Harrier Jet Offer Was Just a Joke
Leonard then sought financial backing from millionaire Todd Hoffman, whom he had met during a mountaineering expedition. Intrigued by Leonard’s audacious plan and convinced of its potential, Hoffman agreed to bankroll the venture.
“We looked at the videotape of the commercial, and I just kept looking at it over and over and over and going: ‘That is absolutely a reckless ad put out there by a major corporation that knows better,'” Hoffman told The Guardian in 2022.
Before proceeding with their ambitious attempt, Leonard and Hoffman needed to verify whether it was legal to purchase a military aircraft. Leonard, posing as a student working on a school project, contacted the Pentagon for clarification.
He managed to contact Kenneth Bacon, who served as the Chief Pentagon Spokesman from 1994 to 2001. Bacon affirmed that purchasing a Harrier jet was permissible as long as it was disarmed and devoid of military weapons. This assurance enabled Leonard and Hoffman to proceed with their intended plan.
With everything in place, Leonard and Hoffman pooled their resources and sent a check for $700,000 to Pepsi, fully expecting to claim their Harrier jet.
However, they soon discovered that the entire campaign was a sham. Pepsi had no intention of awarding a Harrier jet and had included the offer in the commercial purely as a joke.
Brian Swette, Pepsi’s Chief Marketing Officer at the time, along with Michael Patti (Pepsi’s former creative director) and Jeff Mordos (the former COO of Pepsi’s ad agency), decided to ignore the check, hoping that Leonard’s attempt would not inspire others to try the same stunt. The executives were confronted with a dilemma: how to manage the situation without creating additional complications.
In a rather dismissive move, Patti suggested keeping the $700,008.50 and giving Leonard and Hoffman the model jet used in the commercial. This idea, though creative, was ultimately rejected. Instead, Pepsi returned the check and sent Leonard a letter with two free product coupons as compensation for his efforts.
The letter read, “Thanks for the effort. Ha, ha, ha. It was meant to be a joke. For your troubles, here are coupons for two cases of Pepsi.” This response infuriated Leonard and Hoffman, who felt their legitimate attempt to claim the advertised prize had been unfairly dismissed.
Determined to fight for what they believed was rightfully theirs, Leonard and Hoffman decided to sue Pepsi.
Their lawsuit aimed to hold the company accountable for its misleading advertisement and to claim the Harrier jet they had set their sights on. This move set the stage for a high-profile legal battle that would become a landmark case in the advertising law and marketing industry.
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc
As part of their legal battle against Pepsi, Leonard and Hoffman sought the assistance of attorney Lawrence “Larry” Schantz. Regrettably, Pepsi took the initiative by suing Leonard first, intending to intimidate him and Hoffman into abandoning their case.
Pepsi’s primary argument in the lawsuit was that purchasing a Harrier jet was illegal, contrary to Bacon’s earlier statements. They contended that for any offer to be legitimate, it had to comply with the law.
In the Netflix documentary “Pepsi, Where’s My Jet?” released in November 2022, Todd revealed that they were surprised by Pepsi’s decision to file a lawsuit.
He expected a phone call or a meeting to discuss the situation and verify the seriousness of Leonard and Hoffman’s claim. Instead, Pepsi chose to sue them, strictly following the guidelines in their instruction book.
Leonard recounted that a stranger even chased him to serve him with legal paperwork, which was eventually left at his parents’ doorstep. Having never been served legal papers before, Leonard knew it was a serious matter.
On the other hand, Pepsi quickly edited its commercial. The original claim of seven million Pepsi Points for a Harrier jet was changed to 700 million, with the disclaimer “just kidding” added in parentheses beneath the new point total.
Michael Avenatti, known for representing Stormy Daniels and later for attempting to extort Nike, learned about Leonard’s case from a friend while still a law student. He quickly jumped in to assist, aiming to leverage public pressure through aggressive media tactics. Avenatti promised to outmaneuver Pepsi and its legal team by utilizing every available media outlet.
Leonard and Avenatti relied on free media opportunities, such as radio shows, to tell Leonard’s story. This approach attracted attention from television networks and talk shows.
Avenatti, who formed a close friendship with Leonard, spent hundreds of hours investigating Pepsi. He discovered that Pepsi had run a similar promotion in Canada with a disclaimer about the jet and uncovered the disastrous “Number Fever” lottery in the Philippines.
The 1992 campaign, which promised cash prizes, led to riots and at least five deaths after Pepsi mistakenly distributed winning numbers on 600,000 bottle caps, causing widespread outrage and violence.
‘Raptor Salad’ For Lunch! US F-22 Raptor Outgunned, Outmaneuvered By German Eurofighter Typhoon?
The Outcome Of Legal Battle
In the end, Leonard lost the “Pepsi Points Case” when Judge Kimba Wood ruled that the case lacked merit, reasoning that no reasonable person could have genuinely believed the commercial was offering a Harrier jet.
Leonard reflected that while a long-tenured federal judge might have viewed the offer as insincere, many viewers, including himself, genuinely thought the commercial was making a real offer.
Today, “Leonard v. PepsiCo, Inc.” remains a significant case in legal studies, particularly in contract law, and is often discussed in academic settings. The case has also been featured in an episode of “Jeopardy!”
Leonard and Hoffman, who have maintained their friendship, continue to lead fulfilling lives. Hoffman successfully underwent surgery for cancer and is now in remission, seeking new adventures.
Now a national park ranger, Leonard is happily married with children and occasionally shares his next big idea with Hoffman.
- Contact the author at ashishmichel(at)gmail.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
