Re:The time Pepsi got sued for a $33M fighter jet
by billytetrud on Monday August 16, 2021 @06:46PM
(#28203886)
> Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action
That seems pretty dumb to me. Then you're telling me it not actually illegal? There's no way to enforce advertisers not from doing a bait and switch? Count me skeptical.
Re:The time Pepsi got sued for a $33M fighter jet
by dragonwriter on Monday August 16, 2021 @06:57PM
(#28203944)
> Then you're telling me it not actually illegal?
There is a regulatory category called “Bait advertising” created under FTC’s legal authority related to deceptive advertising, and various legal causes of action (mainly fraud and breach of contract, but there are others) that each cover some part of what might be described as “bait and switch” in casual conversation. “Bait and switch” is something that different people will have different boundaries around and has no hard and fast definition.
No, a valid contract was a requirement of the breach of contract claim, not the fraud claim.
> but a contract certainly wouldn't be necessary to accuse them of bait-and-switch.
Bait-and-switch isn't a legal cause of action. The usual cause of action for things described as bait and switch is either breach of contract (if there was an agreement) or fraud (if the bait-and-switcher got something of value from the other party out of it). Both were raised in this case, and both failed.