New Hampshire Woman Wins $560m Lottery, Fighting for Privacy

A woman from New Hampshire recently found out she’d won the state’s Powerball lottery jackpot. In total, she won herself $560 million, but she is now fighting state laws that prevent her from remaining anonymous. State law requires large jackpot winners to have their name, town, and total prize money made public, something which this latest lottery winner does not want.

New Hampshire lottery winner fighting for privacy
A New Hampshire lottery winner, who won $560 million, is busy fighting for the right t remain anonymous.

Lottery Winner Takes on State Laws

The jackpot winner, simply known as Jane Doe for the time being, discovered she’d won the jackpot in early January. She signed the back of her winning ticket, believing that she was required to do so. However, after speaking with a lawyer, she learned that she could have written a nominated trust on the back of the ticket and then remained anonymous.

Jane Doe is yet to collect her prize, while she awaits the court case. According to her lawyer, Jane Doe has described signing the back of her ticket as a massive mistake. The petition to the court is claiming Jane Doe is concerned about her safety. She is apparently an active member of her community and wants to be able to go about her life without everyone knowing she’d won $560 million.

Safety a Real Concern

If she loses the case, she will be forced to reveal her identity. There is a case to be made for the safety of lottery winners though. There have been several winners who have been robbed or even murdered, following a big win. In 2016, a forklift driver from Atlanta was murdered shortly after winning $434 000.

More recently when Mavis Wanczyk landed the biggest single jackpot win, $758 million, residents of her town suddenly started noticing strangers walking around the streets. They were even knocking on doors to ask where she lived. In the end, the police had to step in and set up security at her house.

Casino US is on the side of Jane Doe with this one. If she wants to remain anonymous, we think she should be able to.

End –>