I seem to remember there was a similar case prosecuted at some point where the advertiser claimed that the car was only for illustrative purposes and even drew an analogy with having a model display some goods, saying you wouldn't expect to be buying the model along with the goods.

I might have just dreamt all that up though because I can't find anything online.

there was a case of a hooters employee, she expected to win a toyota but manager supposedly said “toy yoda”

She ended up getting a car: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/09/toy-yo...

Apparently true: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hummer-bummer/

Interestingly, the family that started Toyota is named "Toyoda" (with a d, or rather a だ).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakichi_Toyoda

My memory is 50/50 on whether this is from real life or The Office.

> The car is surrounded by posters that read "Enter to win"

I just have to enter the car? Hold my beer!

> There is absolutely no doubt that ideogram promises a chance to win the car in exchange for the registration.

While a naive person may make that inference, a rational person may understand that 'ideogram' does not constitute an assertion that the picture depicts the prize to be won.

I sure don't mean to defend such predatory scammers, but I'm pretty sure they are legally safe on that part.

I had a friend last year who got very excited when she "won a car" and I had to talk her down when she said all she had to do was make an inconveniently long drive to a shopping mall to claim it / have her prize "verified."

> While a naive person may make that inference, a rational person may understand that 'ideogram' does not constitute an assertion that the picture depicts the prize to be won.

The law isn't based on a "rational" person, but a "reasonable" one, that is the judgement of an ordinary person with typical life experiences. That's why you're tried by a jury of your peers, not of logicians, lawyers or ethicists.

I don't think it's particularly "naive" to believe that retailers or advertising companies could make enough off of a contest promotion to justify the cost of a car. Most of the cost models of contests are opaque and, in most of North America at least, there is probably a general perception that regulations would be in place for something that so prominently implies that it is a contest for a car. The "trick" here is to set up the appearance of a contest while evading the legal controls for an actual contest. The very trick of disambiguating this in the more-or-less fine print is probably only allowed in things that aren't sweepstakes or contests.

Yes, in hindsight, it may seem that only "naive" people could believe this, and that "rational" people see through it. But this strategy probably represents something like the endpoint of a search strategy that found a successful meme, precisely because it mimics authentic, regulated contests.

In a world full of multi-million-dollar marketing budgets, where cars actually are given away to get attention, it's definitely not obvious at a glance that this isn't one of those sweepstakes.

I’m pretty sure you’re actually defending such predatory scammers here.

> a rational person may understand that 'ideogram' does not constitute an assertion

I'm sorry to see you were downvoted for presenting the other side even if you don't support these schemes.

But I have to ask, what constitutes "an assertion" after all? Written text is just one form of fixing and transmitting ideas; alphabets usually originate in actual ideograms with original meanings that were long lost and were reduced to a sound or syllable.

Transmitting an idea with a text-image combo is just as valid for a contract as any other medium as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous. And there is no debate here that it's exactly the intention of the organizers to transmit the idea "you can win a car" - and in fact that's what most people understand, with a tiny exception of an educated and naturally suspicious minority. The only debate is if it's legal for the organizers to claim an ideogram that literally reads "Enter to win A CAR" does not imply the car is a prize.

I don't know how a judge would rule, but from a political preference - philosophical point of view I would strongly incline to deny them that right; we get a much nicer society with less scammers, without losing anything of substance.

Why on earth should we sacrifice people who may not have had exposure to financial literacy to allow these scammers to keep going?