Privacy or lawsuit? Billion-dollar jackpot winner forced to choose

By Kate Northrop

The anonymous Maine lottery winner of a $1.3 billion Mega Millions wants to drop his lawsuit against the mother of his child after a judge warned that he would have to publicly disclose his identity in the court battle.

Following a messy fallout between a $1.3 billion Mega Millions lottery winner and his family, an appeals court upheld a ruling that he would not be allowed to keep his identity hidden from the public during legal proceedings.

As a result, the lottery winner has decided to drop the case against his ex-partner in favor of keeping his name out of the public record.

Referred to as "John Doe" in court documents, the winner had originally sued the mother of his child in 2023 for allegedly revealing the win to his family against his wishes. He sought damages against the woman, known only as "Sara Smith," for potentially jeopardizing his public identity and safety.

His legal basis was that "Sara" had signed an NDA before he claimed the billion-dollar prize, which said that she would keep the jackpot win a secret until their daughter came of age in 2032 to avoid "irreparable harm" caused by the media or public potentially discovering anything about their physical location, assets, and identities. In exchange, "John" would provide her with ongoing financial support and security resources.

The lawsuit came about after the winner discovered that his sister knew about the win, leading him to believe that it was his ex-partner who had allegedly leaked it to his father and stepmother.

Things got nastier when "Sara" retaliated with a lawsuit of her own, claiming that it was "John" who had revealed the win, among other accusations of kidnapping their daughter and conducting unwanted surveillance. The jackpot winner reversed his accusation and admitted to being the one to tell his father about the win.

In April 2025, a judge ruled that "John" would not be entitled to maintaining his privacy in court on the grounds that wealth alone is "not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access."

"He would effectively lose the privacy war and subject himself and his minor daughter to the irreparable harm he brought suit to avoid," U.S. District Judge John Woodcock determined.

The winner was thus met with a black-and-white decision: drop the lawsuit against his ex or reveal his identity to the rest of the world. But even then, the messy situation may not have reached its conclusion.

"Sara's" attorney, Peter Brann, relayed to the Portland Press Herald this week that he intends to oppose the motion to dismiss the case because it was originally filed "without prejudice."

"Which means that they can turn around and file another baseless lawsuit against the defendant tomorrow," Brann explained. "And that, I do not want.... It should never have been filed to begin with."

"Sara's" legal team has until Oct. 5 to respond to "John's" motion to dismiss, which must also be approved by a judge.