This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
A computer glitch in Pepsi's 1992 'Number Fever' promotion in the Philippines caused 800,000 winning bottle caps to be printed instead of two, leading to widespread riots, bombings, and multiple deaths.
Pepsi's number generation system determining daily winners in its Number Fever promotion in the Philippines mistakenly produced a number held by thousands which resulted in riots, deaths, conspiracy theories, and decades of lawsuits.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
AI systems that fail to perform reliably or effectively under varying conditions, exposing them to errors and failures that can have significant consequences, especially in critical applications or areas that require moral reasoning.
Also classified as
The system generated false winning numbers on 800,000 bottle caps, misleading hundreds of thousands of consumers into believing they had won a life-changing prize.
The computer system failed to perform reliably, suffering a glitch that generated 800,000 erroneous winning caps instead of the intended two.
AI system
Due to a decision or action made by an AI system
Unintentional
Due to an unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The incident was caused by an unintentional computer glitch in the deployed number generation system.
Added categories peak at 3: Substantial (Psychological Harm, Indirect)
A 1992 computer glitch in Pepsi's promotional campaign in the Philippines printed 800,000 winning caps instead of two, triggering widespread civil unrest, riots, bombings, and multiple deaths. While the technical failure was a simple database error, the real-world consequences highlighted how automated system failures can severely disrupt local societal stability.
The computer system performed a specific, well-defined function of generating winning numbers and seeding bottle caps based on direct inputs, without context retention or autonomous planning.
Minimal or No Risk: The system was a simple computer program used for a marketing promotion, which falls under entertainment/marketing applications posing low or negligible risk to society under the EU AI Act framework.
The system was used to generate and allocate winning numbers across bottle caps for a marketing promotion.
The reports provide a highly detailed historical account of the 1992 Pepsi 349 incident, including specific numbers of affected people, casualties, financial impacts, and the nature of the computer error.
The incident could be viewed purely as a corporate public relations disaster, but the central role of the computer glitch in generating the error makes it a clear system failure case.
Technology
Computer Glitch
A computer error instructed bottlers to print 800,000 winning caps.
Lack of Security Code Check
Automated systems printed winning numbers without verifying security codes.
Data Inputs
Incorrect Seeding Data
The computer-generated list seeded incorrect winning numbers to the bottler.
Human Factors
Public Desperation and Poverty
Widespread poverty made the grand prize a life-changing sum for consumers.
Consumer Disregard of Security Codes
Consumers demanded payouts based on the printed number alone.
Process and Methods
Flawed Promotion Logic
No process existed to cross-verify printed caps against the intended winners.
Inadequate Quality Control
Failure to inspect physical caps at the bottling plant prior to distribution.
Management
Poor Crisis Management
Offering a small goodwill gesture instead of taking full responsibility.
Inadequate Risk Assessment
Management did not assess the potential for system-wide technical failures.
