There's a very good reason that lawsuits are settled out of court for large sums of money even when if it went to a trial the defendant would probably win the case and pay nothing: trials often bring to public light more damaging-in-the-long-run facts.
For instance, if someone were to sue your company for allegedly finding a dead animal inside of your product, maybe it's best to just pay them some settlement hush money to withdraw the lawsuit? Instead of, oh I don't know, arguing that your product would dissolve said dead animal. But that's just what Pepsi did.
In a 2009 case, an Illinois man claimed he was sipping from his can of Mountain Dew — perhaps in the middle of a long bout of online gaming — when his lips came across the carcass of a dead mouse. In response, Pepsi conducted their own experiments, then reported that there's no way that could've happened since Mountain Dew turns the bodies of dead mice into "jelly-like" (and presumably drinkable) substances by the time you would've opened the can. Duh!
Interesting legal strategy to say the least. So, then: what makes Pepsi look worse here? Accidentally canning a dead mouse in their product once? Or producing a beverage for humans to drink that can dissolve full animals?