Shouldn't he have added "No purchase necessary to win" to the rules?
share
I think today in the U.S. at least, the company has to provide the option of a "no purchase necessary" entry. This means the kids could enter a drawing either by mail or web.
I'm not sure but I think the intention of the law is that if there is a way to do it without purchase then you have to state: "no purchase necessary" so they know there is another option.
There are still contests in the U.S. that require you to purchase the product to obtain an entry.
I wasn't sure either, but I did find with some web searching that the "no purchase necessary" is required to allow companies to run a sweepstakes without running an illegal lottery, something the Federales would insist it becomes if to win the prize(s), purchasing something is required.
https://www.sweeppeasweeps.com/official-rules-center/want-to-require-a-purchase-with-your-sweepstakes-heres-how/#:~:text=The%20law%20that%20requires%20companies,consumers%20from%20fraud%20and%20scams.
So it would seem you can't run a contest that provides a prize *and* require a purchase near as I can determine.
That is a US law. The factory location was not revealed in the movie. So either it was not in the US, or you've uncovered a HUGE plot hole!
share