Lottery Sued by Californian Man For Withholding Jackpot
A Californian man has taken up legal action against the California Lottery Commission after a $5 million lottery win was invalidated. This was due to the fact that the ticket was sold to the man’s son, who was 16 years old. The ticket has been invalidated due to the purchaser being underage, as California law states you need to be 18 or older to gamble.
Father Sends Son to Buy Lottery Ticket
The father sent his son to buy him lotto tickets at a Mobil gas station in mid-October 2016. The son used old winning tickets to pay for the new ones and landed up getting a winning ticket. The father then validated the winning ticket at a 7-Eleven in Long Beach, before validating it a second time at a lottery office in Santa Ana. Everything looked good until, on the 5th of December 2016, the Lottery Commission informed the man that the ticket had been invalidated. It is unclear on how the commission determined it was his son who bought the ticket.
The Californian resident is not taking it lying down though and has filed a law suit with the Los Angeles Superior Court, aimed at the California Lottery Commission, as well as the Mobil Gas Station. He is claiming that the commission and the gas station failed to enforce the rules, as they did not ask his son for proof of his age, and false advertising as they do not state players need to be 18 or older.
Bizarre UK Lottery Lawsuit
There’s another court case going on at the moment against a lottery provider, although this one is a lot stranger and is the complete opposite of the California case. The youngest lotto winner in the United Kingdom is currently suing the national lottery provider, Camelot. She is suing them for negligence after they sold her a winning lotto ticket, which saw her win the equivalent of $1.3 million.
The legal age to buy tickets in the UK is 16, and she was 17 at the time. However, she claims that winning so much money at such a young age made her life miserable. What makes the case even more absurd is that, in the unlikely case she wins and is awarded damages, she’ll have even more money and be even more miserable.