> I mean, we can certainly believe the Judge applied the law correctly, but also disagree that the law should be this way.

I'm not sure what issue you see with the law here. It seems to both be written and applied quite well. The Pepsi ad isn't really misleading or reckless, and obviously just a bit of fun hyperbole.

You should read the opinion. Ruling otherwise would essentially eliminate obvious jokes from advertising, and the opinion makes a good case for just how obvious the joke was.

No reasonable person can disagree with the legal principle at issue. You are suggesting that if you place an ad on, e.g., Facebook marketplace, you should be legally obligated to engage in the transaction with the first person to accept your asking price. Your position is indisputably absurd.

To my mind the transaction was already halfway complete though so it's not like someone advertising a house for 500,000 and deciding not to sell when offered the 500,000. It's more like a car dealership saying if you buy 100 cars from use we will throw in a free house and then after you buy the cars they say nevermind..

And government contractors often expend considerable time and effort developing a bid pitch in response to a solicitation. That doesn't mean they are entitled to the contract. Your proposed contract law regime would break the entire world.

Performance can be a method of accepting an offer and can create a contract. However, it's still necessary for there to be an offer and not just a generic solicitation.

I don't think gameswithgo's post, as written, presents any position on this specific judgment. (I read it as a more general statement that one can agree with a legal ruling while disagreeing with the underlying law(s)/precedent.)