Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 24, 2017, 12:09 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lawsuits against lottery playes

Topic closed. 17 replies. Last post 2 years ago by Stack47.

Page 2 of 2
51
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar

United States
Member #149820
December 9, 2013
644 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 10, 2015, 9:42 am - IP Logged

I have recently scent an email to the Texas State Lottery Commission in regards to retailers suing customers over their winning tickets. It is up to all players to get their states to enact laws that would protect the consumer who won a lottery from any retailer.

If you dont sign the back of the ticket you dont have a case. Yes the retailer can sell all his lottery tickets pre-signed but who the heck would buy them??. The rules are simple you have to produce the winning ticket in person and you have to sign the back period...

    Avatar
    Wyomissing, PA
    United States
    Member #161050
    November 15, 2014
    301 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 10, 2015, 2:55 pm - IP Logged

    If you dont sign the back of the ticket you dont have a case. Yes the retailer can sell all his lottery tickets pre-signed but who the heck would buy them??. The rules are simple you have to produce the winning ticket in person and you have to sign the back period...

    If only it was that simple. Signing the back designates a claimant, it doesn't mean they have rights to all the winnings. Office pools are a prime example.

    And for instant winner terminal games, which some lotteries offer, a winning ticket may immediately print out of the terminal. In those instances, the player has no opportunity to sign the ticket until the lottery retailer hands it over to them. This is where trust is extra important, because the lottery retailer could claim the ticket wasn't yet paid for and/or refuse payment post win, and keep the winning ticket. Lottery agents generally are permitted to play the lottery, including at their own location. The player has an uphill climb in such a dispute unless they act quickly, including getting access to the surveillance video, assuming it even exists, before the retailer deletes it.

    Utilizing a self-service terminal avoids many issues, and is generally safer for the player - less chance of disputes, since ticket only prints upon payment and the player gets immediate possession of the ticket. And lottery subscriptions are even safer yet, since that often cuts out the lottery agent completely.

      Avatar
      Kentucky
      United States
      Member #32652
      February 14, 2006
      7344 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 10, 2015, 11:54 pm - IP Logged

      Stack- l posted this tonight. It makes perfect sense to me, perhaps you could see it the same way... minus my playful banter end piece.

       

       ** She admitted to offering him $50,000- this guy "added" a 3 in front of the 50,000 & that is what is being fought about here. Who in their right mind gives a total stranger, in this case a retailer HALF your winnings? His trying to say that it is " her pattern" to give in 50% sums to total strangers, as though her 4 children don't need it,  which is why he said that she did not give him $100.00 of her original win of a Grand. He said she gave him $500.00.This guy lies lies like a dog.

      l just hope that she has a great legal team that will dismantle this retailer's account of what actually happened. I wouldn't mind 2nd chair. Big Smile

       

       

       

       

      Have a great hibernation..

      He "allegedly added a 3" and apparently convinced the judge to freeze $350,000 of the prize. It doesn't look like the "3 ink" was a different color than the rest.

      It's possible they are both stupid; she signed the paper giving him $50,000 and he forged it by adding the "3".