I'm not sure about the Pepsi ad, but in basically every false advertising case the company accused goes for the "no reasonable person would believe that" defence.

For example, Apple advertises an iPhone as "twice as fast for half the price"? They say no reasonable person would believe that [1]

Or Vitaminwater says the drink "could promote healthy joints, support optimal immune function, and reduce the risk of eye disease"? They claim no reasonable person would believe vitaminwater was a healthy drink [2]

I mean, this seems like a hole in the law that you can drive a truck through.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2008/12/apple-says-cust/ [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-glacau-vitaminwate...

It's similar to the question "Can you sue someone for that?" Sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything, but you probably won't win stupid cases.

Any competent lawyer is going to reach for every available defense that seems vaguely plausible, but they're unlikely to win. A quick search makes it look like although Coca Cola only had to pay a $1.2M fine in this case the defense that no reasonable person would believe their advertising was rejected.

> Coca-Cola fought back arguing that no reasonable consumer could be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage but last year a federal judge rejected this defense.

https://www.truthinadvertising.org/tina-org-objects-unhealth...

Regarding the Apple case, note that Apple's initial defense covered virtually every possible defense in such a case. That wasn't a corporate statement, and indeed another of the defenses was that any claims about the product were fair and accurate.

This is just a standard legal tactic to have every option available (including puffery) if the suit moves forward. And for that claim any reasonable judge would have disagreed but they can include it if they want to really pursue it.

And that lawsuit was dismissed because the limiting factor were flaws with the AT&T network, not the device.

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment of your claim, but at the same time there are consumers who go out of their way to be "mislead" because it can be a profitable venture.

  Apple's initial defense covered
  virtually every possible defense
  in such a case.

Ah, the old "We think this statement is true, and also we don't think any reasonable person would think this statement is true" defence.

> I'm not sure what think is wrong with the ad besides making an offer they didn't want to make good on?

Personally, I think that's always wrong and this should be by default judged in favour of the customer taking them up on an offer. Advertisements aren't random remarks thrown off the cuff.