In the mid-1990s, a cheeky Pepsi commercial took a playful jab at over-the-top advertising, only to find itself at the heart of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit that remains a legal touchstone even today.
The case, Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., decided in 1999 and affirmed on appeal in 2000, involved a marketing promotion named “Pepsi Stuff.” To induce repeat business, PepsiCo implemented a program in which consumers could gather “Pepsi Points” on soft drink containers and exchange them for products, from sunglasses to leather jackets. But a satirical television advertisement for the promotion lit the fuse and launched the lawsuit.
In the ad, a teenager lands a Harrier fighter jet outside his school with onscreen text stating the aircraft could be redeemed for 7 million Pepsi Points. While most viewers laughed, 21-year-old business student John Leonard saw an opportunity.
A literal reading of a joke
Leonard calculated that buying the necessary Pepsi Points through product purchases was unrealistic, so he took advantage of a clause in the catalogue that allowed consumers to purchase additional points at 10 cents apiece (after submitting at least 15 product-earned points). He pooled $700,000 from investors, including a friend, and mailed a cheque to PepsiCo, along with 15 physical Pepsi Points and a completed order form requesting the Harrier jet.
PepsiCo dismissed the request, calling the commercial a joke. Leonard sued, claiming the advertisement constituted a valid offer and that he had fulfilled the terms of acceptance. The soft drink giant responded with a declaratory judgment suit in New York, where the case was ultimately heard. Judge Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Pepsi’s favour.
In her ruling, Judge Wood found that the commercial lacked the clarity, detail and seriousness required to be considered a binding legal offer. Among the reasons: it did not specify where to send orders for the jet, and more crucially, the catalogue, which was the governing document for redemptions, did not include the aircraft. The ruling further emphasised that “no objective person could reasonably have concluded” that the commercial actually promised a fighter jet.
Leonard’s fraud claim also failed, with the court noting that Pepsi never deposited his cheque, thus no actual harm was incurred.
A cautionary tale for advertisers
After the case, Pepsi quietly updated the ad to increase the required points for the jet to 700 million and added a “Just Kidding” disclaimer. The company also reportedly offered Leonard a $750,000 settlement, which he declined.
Although no jet changed hands, the case soon became a model example in contract law classrooms as well as brand promotion circles. It reaffirmed the legal doctrine that advertisements are usually viewed as solicitations to negotiate rather than binding offers, unless the ad is clear, explicit and serious.
It also stimulated shifts in the ways that advertisers speak about aspirational or humorous messaging, particularly when presenting incentives. The case has been written up in books, covered in lectures, and, more recently, in the Netflix documentary series Pepsi, Where’s My Jet?, which returned it to cultural discourse decades on.
Turns out, getting a Harrier jet for drinking soda really was too good to be true. But Leonard’s legal moonshot did more than make headlines; it grounded advertisers in the reality that jokes can backfire when fine print is fuzzy. For Pepsi, the message was clear: next time you dangle a fighter jet, make sure there’s a “just kidding” in bold.