More than 500 players of a lottery scratch-off card filed suit against the game's developer seeking about $250 million in contested prize money.
Confusion over the rules led many to believe they had winning tickets, but those tickets were not honored by the state. The suit contends that the lottery's contractor, GTECH Corporation, owes prize money to the players because they wrote the rules and programmed the scanners to identify the winners.
GTECH Corporation spokeswoman Angela Wiczek said "we believe that the suit has no merit and we'll defend our actions."
Houston attorney Manfred Sternberg, who represents the players, said the rules imply that when people buy a scratch off ticket, they should "win whatever they said we would win."
He said GTECH programmed the computers to deny winning tickets, as defined by the rules. GTECH "programmed the computers that validate the tickets so that even though it looks as though we've won, they've programmed the computers to say that's not a winning ticket," Sternberg said.
The suit says GTECH was made aware of the confusion days after the game's release on Sept. 1, but made no changes to the game rules or scanner software. The game ran for seven weeks before the Texas Lottery Commission pulled it, saying in a statement that it had "received feedback from some players expressing confusion regarding certain aspects of this popular game."
The rule causing confusion concerns a tic-tac-toe game that which had a prize box beneath it, which players can scratch off to reveal a dollar amount. Next to it is box saying 5X.
The rules state: "Reveal a 'money bag' symbol in the 5X box, win five times that prize."
Lottery officials said the five-times multiplier is contingent upon the previous sentence, which explains that players should scratch off a "tic-tac-toe" combination. If they get a tic-tac-toe, they would win the prize amount. And if the card also has a money bag, that would multiply their prize by five, the officials said.
But that is not how the rules read, Sternberg said.
The suit filed in Travis County district court on Tuesday could be joined by another 1,000 players, and the amount sought in the suit will be updated to reflect the unpaid prize money, Sternberg said.
The players plan to seek legislative permission to sue the Texas Lottery Commission as well. The state, under sovereign immunity, cannot be sued without its permission in most cases.
Until or if lawmakers approve its suit, the players will pursue its case against GTECH.
"We don't care who pays it," Sternberg said. "We're trying to get what we believe the lottery told our clients in writing that they would pay."
People need to stop playing these crooked Lottery scammers.I swear all the states is getting worse by the day it seems.I supported the Tennessee for years,never won nothing ,it sure feels good to be stronger than a bad habit.Its not worth it.I beat the odds.Cheryl
Most courts consider confusion and ignorance the same things, neither isn't a good excuse for not understanding the rules. Continuing to play a game which they didn't understand was foolish. Being confused, ignorant and foolish is no reason to be rewarded.
I really don't see them winning this lawsuit. The ticket might have been confusing, but like RJOh said being confused doesn't mean that you should get money that you were never entitled to in the first place.
These folk have as much chance of winning this lawsuit as l have of finding my wallet l lost while upside down riding the " Demon" at Great America back in 2005.
It seems to me that they know they probably won't win but are pushing for a settlement. According to the suit they've specifically requested a jury trial, and juries are known for frequently ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in misrepresentation/false advertising cases like this.
Texas Lottery Commission pulled it, saying in a statement that it had "received feedback from some players expressing confusion regarding certain aspects of this popular game."
One of our Texas LP members said they didn't play the Monopoly Millionaire Club game because the rules very confusing especially for a $5 a ticket game.
If they get a tic-tac-toe, they would win the prize amount.
Similar to the "match three like amounts and win that prize" scratch-offs, but some of those players believe they get a free ticket because they matched just one "free ticket" symbol. If these players are that confused, maybe they shouldn't be playing lottery games.
Lottery rules should never be written like tech. industry EULA/Privacy agreements.....confusing to the masses that have no legal background.
Agreed. the case will be heard since its made it this far. No reason to NOT hold a company accountable that tampered with the software. I disagree politely with the posters that "assume" ignorance of the law toss's out many a case. It doesn't. Toyota, McDonalds and Very large Pharmaceuticals are sued all the time ( and rightly so) for various "ignorant" people who entrust that what they are being sold is safe and follows standards. Again, Gtech tampering with software and dutifully tried to hide the goof up. They are accountable to the public buyer (player).
The suit contends that the lottery's contractor, GTECH Corporation, owes prize money to the players because they wrote the rules and programmed the scanners to identify the winners.
A question will be "did the players buy the tickets from GTECH" and just a guess, but I doubt the majority of scratch-off players in Texas or in any other state can name who manufactured the tickets. It's going to interesting to see how these confused players can prove GTECH is responsible for the rules when all the Lottery rules are made with the approval of the Texas legislators.
"Being confused, ignorant and foolish is no reason to be rewarded."
It doesn't look like you followed Bill Cosby's current problems.
"Being confused, ignorant and foolish is no reason to be rewarded."
"It doesn't look like you followed Bill Cosby's current problems."
Is he asking to be rewarded for being confused, ignorant and foolish too? Players like him don't usually complain when they buy a losing lottery ticket.
I am a stickler for proper English. Sensibly tic-tac-toe is needed to claim the 5x bonus.
However, the sentence does not say winning 5x the prize is dependent on having tic-tac-toe. It is not out of the realm of possibility that winning the 5x bonus is independent on having tic-tac-toe.
The players have a case.
" the sentence does not say winning 5x the prize is dependent on having tic-tac-toe."
The rules shown on the ticket are only two sentences long, and really shouldn't confuse people. Even if it does, being confused doesn't give you any legal rights you didn't already have. The only thing that might give their case legitimacy would be if that sentence is actually misleading, but the sentence itself is extremely clear: "Reveal a 'money bag' symbol in the 5X box, win five times that prize." The only reasonable interpretation of the sentence depends on what "that prize" refers to. Since there is no prize shown in the 5X box it should be pretty obvious that it refers to the prize described in the previous sentence.
Aside from the simple interpretation of the two sentences on the front of the ticket, the back of the ticket includes a very standard disclaimer about "applicable laws, rules, procedures and final decisions of [the] Executive Director". That means it's the lottery's understanding of the rules that matter, not the players'.
"The players have a case."
So does everyone else who files some paperwork and pays a fee. What they don't have is a realistic chance of winning the case.
At least if someday someone finds your wallet it might be returned to you because it existed and belonged to you. This group is trying to claim $250M that never belonged to anyone because it never existed.
"The rule causing confusion concerns a tic-tac-toe game that which had a prize box beneath it, which players can scratch off to reveal a dollar amount"
There is a prize whether it is won or not with the Tic-Tac-Toe game.
The way it is written it could be interpreted that there are two games. The Tic-Tac-Toe game and the scratching off of the money bag.
I posted on another thread that I have one of those tics. Didn't get 3 fives in a tic tac toe. The tic had a 5 in all 4 corners. Did get the money bag with 5x. If I had gotten a tic tac toe the prize on the tic was $500. So the rational is that because I got the 5x money bag I won $2500. Well, there is no $2500 prize tier for this game, so common sense alone tells me I didn't win. That's not too hard to figure out. Was it a little confusing at first? Yes. But again, a little common sense was all that was needed. And to be sure, I took the tic to the store and scanned it.
On a side note, the suit is against G-Tech because there is a law that the Texas Lottery Commission can't be sued. My understanding is that the lawyers are trying to circumvent that by going to lawmakers to make an exception. Good luck with that.
Dawn Nettles got this whole thing started because she's had a burr up her rear for TLC for years.
I don,t play any games thats sounds confusing,especially those crossword games,keep it simple.Quick pic please.
Bill is not asking, but several of the women he was with at the Playboy Mansion 40 to 50 years want rewarded. According to most of the women, Bill was player.
I rode on that "demon" ride and enjoyed it each time. Cheers!
Everybody who went to the Playboy Mansion in those days was a player, even the ladies. I read about them claiming to in the PB mansion when they were 14-15, sounds like they should have been home doing their school work instead. Now that they are getting near retirement age they want a pension.
"we were confused about the rules - but we want you to pay us anyway" has been tried many, many times in the industry. I doubt it will work here...but this is Texas. Strange things happen.
And Lottery operator doesn't approve the rules. The Lottery Commission (NOT the Legislature, as was previously posted) does.
With all due respect, Ms. Nettles is a juggaloon.
I used to work on this account (I was the regional Marketing Director for GTECH).
Dawn showed up at a retailer meeting regarding the upcoming Pick 3 game (claiming that, as a member of the press, she had a right to attend a private business meeting). When the quesiton and answer period came up she asked me - with a total "AHA" look on her face "if the odds of winning 3-straight (exact order) are 1:1000, then why isn't the top prize $1,000?"
I said, "well Dawn, you forgot the prize payout %. (since she used my first name, like we were drinking buddies) The laws of the State of Texas require that the Lottery return revenue to the State. So the State get's a cut, and the Lottery and the Operator get some funds to run the Lottery, plus the retailers get paid for handling & merchandising the product. So, if the game is set up to run at 60% payout, the top prize at those odds is $600 - exactly as its set up under the law".
When will people stop treating her like she's some sort of industry expert? She's not. Her animus at the lottery not letting her dictate operational decisions under the guise of "public input" is an insult to intellilgent people.
I used to see photos of several of those women in the Playboy mansion hot tub with some guy and would think : "STD soup."
Do You Trust Gtech?
If you do, I think you should take a look at how they treated Texans in years past...
George Wins the Lottery
by Greg Palast
The Bush family daisy chain of favors, friendship and finance goes way back to Dubya's "War Years." Junior Bush was a fighter pilot during the war in Vietnam; not in the United States Air Force, where one could get seriously hurt, mind you, but in the Texas air force, known as the Texas Air National Guard. Texas's toy army, an artifact of Civil War days, is a favorite club for warmongers who are a bit squeamish about actual combat. Membership excused these weekend warriors from the military draft and the real shoot-'em-up in 'Nam.
During the war, Senator Prescott Bush and his son, Congressman George Bush Sr., were more than happy to send other men's sons and grandsons to Southeast Asia. However, there were not enough volunteers for this suspect enterprise, so Congress created a kind of death lottery: If your birth date was picked out of a hat, off to the army you went. But the Air Guard flyboys were exempted from this macabre draft lotto.
When tested for the coveted Air Guard get-out, young George W. tested at twenty-five out of one hundred, one point above "too-dumb-to-fly" status, yet leaped ahead of hundreds of applicants to get the Guard slot.
Now, how could that happen? Only recently could I get a glimmer of the truth, a by-product of an Observer investigation of a New Jersey company called GTech. This firm holds the contract for a far less deadly and far more lucrative lottery operation than the one for the military draft: the Texas State Lottery.
Follow the money. It's 1997. Top-gun George Jr. is governor and GTech is in deep doo-doo with Texas lottery regulators. Texas is the nation's biggest, most lucrative lottery and GTech was about to lose its contract, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The state's lottery director was sacked following revelations that GTech had put the director's boyfriend on the company payroll while he was under indictment for bribery. A new clean-hands director, Lawrence Littwin, ordered an audit, terminated GTech's contract and put it out for rebid. Littwin also launched an investigation into GTech's political donations.
Then a funny thing happened: The Texas Lottery Commission fired Littwin.
Almost immediately thereafter, the Bush-appointed commissioners canceled the bidding for a new operator, though the low bidder had already been announced to replace GTech. The commissioners also halted the financial audit, ended the political payola investigation and gave the contract back to GTech.
Why did the Texas government work so hard at saving GTech's license? A letter to the U.S. Justice Department � I have obtained a copy � provides some fascinating details. The writer points to one Ben Barnes, a lobbyist to whom GTech paid fees of $23 million. Way back in 1968, according to the whistleblower, an aide to Barnes � then lieutenant governor of the Lone Star State � quietly suggested to Air Guard chief Brig. Gen. James Rose that he find a safe spot in the Guard for Congressman George Bush's son.
Whether the Bushes used their influence to get young George out of serving in Vietnam was a big issue during George Jr.'s neck-and-neck race for governor against Ann Richards in 1994. Bush's opponents, however, did not know of Barnes's office's contact with General Rose, so the story died.
The letter ties Barnes's knowledge of Governor Bush's draft-dodging to GTech's exclusive deal with the state: "Governor Bush . . . made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid [the GTech lottery contract] because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the '94 campaign. During that campaign, Bush was asked if his father, then a member of Congress, had helped him get in the National Guard. Bush said 'no'...George Bush was placed ahead of thousands of young men, some of whom died in Viet Nam...Barnes agreed never to confirm the story and the governor talked to the chair of the lottery two days later, and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid."
The whistleblower remained anonymous, but offered to come forward later to authorities. Fingering Barnes, a Democrat, as the man who put in the fix for the Bushes with the Air Guard seemed wildly implausible. The letter remained sealed and buried. No investigation followed, neither Barnes nor the letter writer were called by the Feds.
But then in 1998, Littwin�the discharged reform lottery director�filed a suit charging that the millions GTech paid for lobbyists bought them contract protection. He subpoenaed Barnes. In 1999, facing a grilling under oath Barnes admitted in a sworn statement to the court, that it was indeed him who got George W. into the Air Guard.
Amazingly though, he claimed to have done this nice thing for young George without any contact, direct or indirect, from the Bushes. How Barnes knew he should make the fix without a request from the powerful Bush family remains a mystery, one of those combinations of telepathy and coincidence common to Texas politics.
Littwin asserted that other witnesses can verify that the cash bought the governor's influence to save GTech's license. GTech responds irrefutably that it terminated its lobbying contract with Barnes before the 1997 dismissals of the lottery directors�but not before the blackmailing alleged in the anonymous letter. And, although the company denies it maintained the financial connection to Barnes, GTech's chairman, Guy Snowden, was a partner in a big real estate venture with Barnes's wife. (In 1995, Snowden was forced to resign as chairman of GTech when a jury found he tried to bribe British billionaire Richard Branson.)
What did GTech get for their $23 million to Barnes, the man who saved Dubya from the war? Can't say. In November 1999, GTech paid a reported $300,000 to Littwin; in return, Littwin agreed to seal forever Barnes's five-hour deposition transcript about the Bush family influence on the lottery and the Air Guard.
I'm not complaining, mind you. After all, the Bush family has given us the best democracy money can buy.
(From The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, by Greg Palast. Copyright � Greg Palast 2002, 2003.)