It doesn't fit the regulatory definition for two key reasons:
(1) the regulatory definition of bait advertising turns on intent at the time of advertising, not decisions which happen later.
(2) the regulatory definition also turns on the intent being not to sell the thing adveritsed; even if the intent in advance is to sell it on different terms, that is not “bait advertising” (it may br prohibited by some other law or rule in some cases.)
> Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case.
Even if you could construe the ad as an offer to sell anything, it wasn’t an offer to sell one thing to lure people in and sell them something else.
(And, of course, the Court already ruled in the case, in adjudicating a different claim to which the same question was relevant, that it couldn’t be reasonably viewed as an offer at all.)
2) They did indeed not ever intend to sell the thing advertised. So again, what are you talking about?
I dunno man, I guess I just disagree.
And I told you I think they were wrong.
> Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?
All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
And the court ruled that no one could reasonably view it as an offer to make the jet available as a reward.
Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?
> Even if that wasn't the case, what is the substitute product?
All of the other garbage they sold for Pepsi points...
I disagree. I think it very much is the same thing. Unless they had other reasons (other than that they didn't want to honor their advertisement).
Both quotes you wrote down seem to quite clearly apply in this Pepsi case.