Can people sue the state lottery for jeopardizing physical or financial safety due to lack of anonymity?
I had a discussion with a friend and we both ended up agreeing that it recklessly endangers a lottery winner to publicly reveal their identity. If that person becomes robbed, hacked and/or injured soon after winning as a result of being revealed, can't they sue the state government for being so blatantly careless?
united-states lotteries
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I had a discussion with a friend and we both ended up agreeing that it recklessly endangers a lottery winner to publicly reveal their identity. If that person becomes robbed, hacked and/or injured soon after winning as a result of being revealed, can't they sue the state government for being so blatantly careless?
united-states lotteries
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I had a discussion with a friend and we both ended up agreeing that it recklessly endangers a lottery winner to publicly reveal their identity. If that person becomes robbed, hacked and/or injured soon after winning as a result of being revealed, can't they sue the state government for being so blatantly careless?
united-states lotteries
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I had a discussion with a friend and we both ended up agreeing that it recklessly endangers a lottery winner to publicly reveal their identity. If that person becomes robbed, hacked and/or injured soon after winning as a result of being revealed, can't they sue the state government for being so blatantly careless?
united-states lotteries
united-states lotteries
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
edited 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
9,96321837
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
asked 2 hours ago
user14554
41
41
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user14554 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The level of anonymity or privacy given by the lottery administrator (the state) to the lottery winner depends on the terms and conditions of lottery that are accepted as a binding contract when the buyer buys a lottery ticket. It's all in the small print. If you don't like the terms of the lottery, don't buy a ticket.
The lottery terms probably says that the state can use the winner's name in marketing and promotional materials. For a winner to be able to be anonymous, the terms of the lottery would have to specifically state that anonymity is guaranteed, while at the same time, allowing the state to report the winner to the IRS for tax purposes. (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous.)
The winner will have little recourse against the state due to circumstances - like being robbed - which are outside of the state's control. And it's quite difficult to sue any form of government; states and the federal government are by law immune to most legal actions.
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
1
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
user14554 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35851%2fcan-people-sue-the-state-lottery-for-jeopardizing-physical-or-financial-safety-d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The level of anonymity or privacy given by the lottery administrator (the state) to the lottery winner depends on the terms and conditions of lottery that are accepted as a binding contract when the buyer buys a lottery ticket. It's all in the small print. If you don't like the terms of the lottery, don't buy a ticket.
The lottery terms probably says that the state can use the winner's name in marketing and promotional materials. For a winner to be able to be anonymous, the terms of the lottery would have to specifically state that anonymity is guaranteed, while at the same time, allowing the state to report the winner to the IRS for tax purposes. (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous.)
The winner will have little recourse against the state due to circumstances - like being robbed - which are outside of the state's control. And it's quite difficult to sue any form of government; states and the federal government are by law immune to most legal actions.
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
1
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The level of anonymity or privacy given by the lottery administrator (the state) to the lottery winner depends on the terms and conditions of lottery that are accepted as a binding contract when the buyer buys a lottery ticket. It's all in the small print. If you don't like the terms of the lottery, don't buy a ticket.
The lottery terms probably says that the state can use the winner's name in marketing and promotional materials. For a winner to be able to be anonymous, the terms of the lottery would have to specifically state that anonymity is guaranteed, while at the same time, allowing the state to report the winner to the IRS for tax purposes. (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous.)
The winner will have little recourse against the state due to circumstances - like being robbed - which are outside of the state's control. And it's quite difficult to sue any form of government; states and the federal government are by law immune to most legal actions.
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
1
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
The level of anonymity or privacy given by the lottery administrator (the state) to the lottery winner depends on the terms and conditions of lottery that are accepted as a binding contract when the buyer buys a lottery ticket. It's all in the small print. If you don't like the terms of the lottery, don't buy a ticket.
The lottery terms probably says that the state can use the winner's name in marketing and promotional materials. For a winner to be able to be anonymous, the terms of the lottery would have to specifically state that anonymity is guaranteed, while at the same time, allowing the state to report the winner to the IRS for tax purposes. (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous.)
The winner will have little recourse against the state due to circumstances - like being robbed - which are outside of the state's control. And it's quite difficult to sue any form of government; states and the federal government are by law immune to most legal actions.
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
The level of anonymity or privacy given by the lottery administrator (the state) to the lottery winner depends on the terms and conditions of lottery that are accepted as a binding contract when the buyer buys a lottery ticket. It's all in the small print. If you don't like the terms of the lottery, don't buy a ticket.
The lottery terms probably says that the state can use the winner's name in marketing and promotional materials. For a winner to be able to be anonymous, the terms of the lottery would have to specifically state that anonymity is guaranteed, while at the same time, allowing the state to report the winner to the IRS for tax purposes. (Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous.)
The winner will have little recourse against the state due to circumstances - like being robbed - which are outside of the state's control. And it's quite difficult to sue any form of government; states and the federal government are by law immune to most legal actions.
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
edited 17 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
answered 1 hour ago
BlueDogRanch
9,96321837
9,96321837
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
1
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
1
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
I don't see how conditions are relevant in this case. If you sign a contract to kill someone, you still go to prison. If the state government's decisions are recklessly endangering people when it is 100% avoidable, then that choice of the state to impose that risk is still the state's fault no matter what conditions anyone agrees to. Couldn't at least a class action lawsuit of multiple lottery winners do something?
– user14554
28 mins ago
1
1
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
The state does not force someone to buy a lottery ticket and enter into a contract regarding the winnings. The state is immune by law. The state is not "recklessly endangering people"; people make a choice when they buy a ticket. Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and South Carolina all allow lottery winners to remain anonymous. If a winner is not in one of those states, find a lawyer and sue the state for recklessly endangering people; you'll lose, but that's one way to possibly encourage the state leg. to pass laws like the other states that seek to protect winners.
– BlueDogRanch
17 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@user14554 that's some convoluted thinking going on right there... if the individual doesn't want exposure in the event they win, then they shouldn't buy a ticket, simple enough. The state isn't being reckless, they give people ample opportunity not to buy a ticket.
– Moo
13 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@BlueDogRanch I see what you're trying to say from a bureaucratic standpoint, but it's also lacking the ever-crucial common sense. Suppose park-goers sign a waiver that no park staff are responsible for injuries. Then, for fun, a roller coaster operator intentionally takes a sledge hammer, and while 20 people are riding it, the operator knocks out a steel beam leading 20 people to be injured or killed. Wouldn't you agree that it's simply common sense the operator's actions lead to injuries? Regardless of any contract, it's still the choice of the staff to be a danger to the public.
– user14554
11 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
@user14554 wilful endangerment is a whole different ballgame, and your example is nothing like a state lottery publicity policy.
– Moo
5 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
user14554 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user14554 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user14554 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user14554 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35851%2fcan-people-sue-the-state-lottery-for-jeopardizing-physical-or-financial-safety-d%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
