10M is nothing to Pepsi with a market cap of 178B. If they're going to put something out as a token, they could have easily 10-20x'd that and had a much more meaningful payout.
Why should Pepsi have spent 100 to 200mm giving people money? Like, that's clearly the wrong decision. People still would have been angry and not bought Pepsi.
Well some would argue that it is Pepsi who were giving lottery so any mistake on their part should be on them. Like if you mistakenly deposit 1 million dollar into my account I don't owe you shit and I shouldn't be asked to repay it back legally.
Here off course it depends on the laws of that country. For instance Philippines could certainly have said its your mistake so you owe people money instead. They would have then taken higher steps than that if the company failed to pay back like canceling passports of foreign employees and extradition of executives.
Off course this is all hypothetical but there should be laws that hold companies responsible for their own mistakes.
You think executives should have been extradited from the US to the Philippines to face trial because of this? You think the Philippines should have stolen the employees passports and thrown them in jail and hold them hostage?
And, actually, if someone accidentally deposits 1m into your bank account, you do owe them shit. Specifically, you owe them 1m.
What you're saying is just so ridiculous I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.
Well I said it hypothetically. It all depends on the laws of the country. If Philippines held Pepsi responsible and ordered them to pay the entire amount, it would be a different situation.
If you are ordered to pay money by the government and can't pay it may considered fraud. So the government can take bigger actions. I guess bankruptcy may follow where the government can end up seizing all assets the company has. If all those steps are insufficient then even bigger steps may follow.
As I said it all depends on the laws of that country. Not all countries have similar laws.
Wait, are you saying that you shouldn't have to pay back money accidentally delivered to you? Or is that an argument that a hypothetical person would make?
