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.