Lawsuit over lottery tickets tries to beat odds
By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 11, 2008 at 3:56 p.m.
Would you buy a scratch game ticket if you knew the top prizes had already been awarded?
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky
Attorney Rob Carey and his client, LaVonne Bazemore Watkins.
Lawsuit over nonwinning lottery tickets tries to beat odds
LaVonne Bazemore Watkins stopped at her neighborhood Texaco station on a summer day 10 years ago and plunked down $2 for a "Luck of the Zodiac" scratch ticket she hoped would make her $10,000 richer.
Her chances of winning: a big fat zero.
Turns out, the last of the $10,000 top prizes had been claimed more than two months earlier. But Watkins didn't find that out until later.
"I've been cheated, I've been lied to, and I'm not the only one," she said. "I want somebody held accountable."
The Colorado Springs woman filed a lawsuit alleging the Colorado Lottery brings in millions each year by knowingly selling tickets that have no chance to win the big money. Legal technicalities have kept the case bouncing around the courts for eight years, but its merits have yet to be considered — a situation her attorney hopes will be remedied soon.
Colorado is one of about 20 states that continues to sell scratch tickets even after all the game's top prizes have been awarded, a practice that includes the wildly popular "Colorado Millionaire" game, which costs $20 a pop.
"It might be a really small chance, but it can't be zero, because you printed on the face of the ticket you can win $1 million," said Watkins' attorney, Rob Carey, a former Arizona deputy attorney general who now practices in Colorado Springs. "It's completely deceptive, completely false, completely misleading. There's no justifying it."
More than the top prize
The Colorado Lottery usually ends games after the top prizes have been claimed, spokeswoman Erika Gonzalez said. In the case of a recent millionaire game, the three $1 million prizes were gone May 2, but the game stayed open until its $250,000 prize was claimed, then closed May 25. In the interim, players bought another $287,000 in tickets, she said.
"That money wouldn't have been given to the state had people known the truth," Carey said. "The chance to win $1 million — that's what people play for."
Gonzalez said their research has shown that people play for more than just the top prize.
"In fact, some of our players complain if we end a game while there are still significant second tier prizes remaining," she said.
At the time Watkins bought her ticket in 1998, there was no easy way for players to find out which prizes were left. After she read a newspaper story about the issue, Watkins took her ticket to Carey, who filed a formal public records request. It took about two months to determine that the top prizes had run out before the game ended, he said.
Now, consumers can ask retailers to instantly check which games no longer have top prizes or look up the information themselves at coloradolottery.com, Gonzalez said. As of Friday, five of the 35 scratch games had no top prizes left.
"They expect the player to go figure it out," Carey said. "Why can't their vendors put something up within a day or two and say here are what the true odds are — or pull the game?"
Gonzalez said it would be difficult to require retailers to post a notice when all top prizes in a game are gone because of counter space considerations and problems enforcing such a rule.
"We believe retailers are more responsive if the request for that information comes from a customer," she said. "That's why we encourage consumers to ask retailers for reports listing the top prizes remaining in games they're interested in purchasing."
'Second-chance drawings'
After the top prizes are gone, losing tickets can be entered into "second-chance drawings" for the top prize in all games with an award of $250,000 or more, as well as the $3 Crossword series of games, Gonzalez said. Some drawings can be entered online, while others require consumers to send in their tickets.
"It's a contrivance," Carey said. "(The ticket) doesn't say you have a chance to win in some loser lottery. They're saying you have a chance to win in that scratch game. And you don't."
Carey has brought similar lawsuits in California, Arizona and Washington, none of which were successful, although the latter two might be revived depending on what happens in Colorado, Carey said.
In the Watkins lawsuit, the state Supreme Court recently ruled that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act barred suing the state, so Carey has changed the defendant to the retailer, Texaco. He hopes to have the lawsuit certified as a class action suit.
"If it gets to a jury, we're gonna cream 'em," Carey said.
A $20 million lawsuit against the Indiana lottery for overstating prizes received class-action status early this month. In Virginia, Washington and Lee University business professor Scott Hoover is suing to force the state to compensate the people who spent $85 million for already-claimed top prizes over a three year period. Virginia changed its policy a year ago and now ends scratch-off games after the last top prize is awarded, as do California, New York and Massachusetts.
Back in Colorado, Watkins still picks up an occasional game ticket, but she has no delusions that she's going to scratch it off and strike it rich.
"I know the reality now," she said. "I know what the chances truly are."
SCRATCH 'N' SNIFF?
Spend $3 on a crossword scratch ticket, and odds are 1 in 857,142 of winning the top prize of $40,000. But you can get scents: the sweet smell of flowers, chocolate or coffee. Last month, Lottery retailers began selling Crossword Bouquet, Chocolate Crossword and Coffee Crossword, fragrant versions of one of their most popular games.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 11, 2008
4:07 p.m.
EastVail writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
July 11, 2008
4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
I think its a legitimate complaint...but having Texaco as the defendant is wrong and will cause it to be thrown out or lose. Its the State Lottery that is at fault, not the retailer. So since the State has immunity, they should just drop it.
July 11, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
CyberHostage writes:
First the serious business: this IS a deceptive practice. Shame on you Colorado! People who bought tickets in this fashion - and still have the stubs to prove it - should be entitled to a refund.
Now that I got THAT out of the way, I just want to go on record and say that I'd gladly pay $1 to watch Ms. Watkins scratch anything she wants.
July 11, 2008
4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jack_Bauer writes:
what? does she want her $2 back? - I'll send it to her if that is what she wants. Get a life will ya
July 11, 2008
5:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Buckwheat writes:
She just had to be a Redhead. Yea, i'd Scratch and Sniff. She does have a point. Who in their right mind would shell out bucks for a ticket when the big prize is already gone? Why not just write the State a check and give it to them? If ya knew the big prize was gone, you would buy a ticket for one that wasn't. Right?
July 11, 2008
5:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
johnson writes:
If she had won a smaller prize, say 20,000 with that ticket, you think there would be a lawsuit? BTW, love the posed photo of the shyster and his client.
July 11, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
anya writes:
The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
July 11, 2008
5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
The lottery is a tax on innumeracy. Casinos are the same thing.
These things are run by carnies no matter how they dress up the nonsense. You play, you loose. Them's the rules, Cleetus. What it says on the ticket is not a contract.
If I was a judge on the bench, a case like this wouldn't see two minutes in my courtroom before I tossed it out. This is the quintessential frivolous lawsuit. Rob Carey deserves an official reprimand for bringing it.
It gives a bad name to those who have real grievances for actual harm done.
July 11, 2008
6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
I think that she has better chance of grand prize winning the powerball, then winning this lawsuit. The simple fact is, that they express the odds for the beginning of the game, not through the whole game.
Though, just thinking about it, I think that Colorado might be smart to create a ticket, where you get the traditional low prizes (1-10K, or whatever). If you do not win one, then you have a lotto of sorts, where a grand prize is rolled at the end of the month. This way, the person pays attention to it all through out.
July 11, 2008
7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
lcsmithsfc writes:
The pull tabs or pickles as some call them are the same way. In Washington state, as the prizes are won, they are crossed off so you know what your chances are. In Colorado they just continue to fill the machines, so you have absolutely no idea if there are any winners left or not. Maybe we should start a suit against them.
July 11, 2008
8:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
RegusPatoff writes:
You know, if she doesn't pay a dime to buy the ticket, her chances of winning are still the same... zero. I hope this goes to court, she gets a jury verdict for $2 and then receives a $20 parking ticket for letting the meter expire. Justice would be served. The dangerous precedent that this will set is that anyone will want to litigate if ANY of the prizes are gone when the ticket is scratched. Someone will be able to CLAIM that they were "really" after the medium prize instead of the grand prize. This is so typical of our culture today... everybody wants something for nothing... or 2-dollars. And, of course, I wouldn't be doing justice if I didn't also comment about the photo... nice job there... CSI-Denver.
July 11, 2008
9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Nice picture...has "Frivilous lawsuit" written all over it! They still have smaller prizes. So next they will close the game when the "big prizes" are gone, and she will claim the state kept the "small prize" money that wasn't claimed because the game was closed! Get a life money grubber!
July 11, 2008
9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Between this nonsense and McDonald's being sued for hot coffee, its no wonder people have no faith in our legal system. Of course, this is a dandy example of what happens when the Gummint gets into what used to be illegal gambling. In the old days, when my father was growing up back East, it was run by The Mob and they called it The Numbers Racket. Gimme a break. Mike
July 11, 2008
10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
What is up with the "I'm posing with my lawyer" thing? Clearly trying to get some publicity.
Rickylee...it's obvious, she would marry and divorce you within a week and take everything you own. Find a nice girl bro!
July 11, 2008
10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
And people complain about the price of gas?...anyone who plays these scam games in the first place deserves what they get. If Las Vegas offered games with these astronomical odds against winning, it would have been shut down by regulators decades ago. It is nothing more than a tax on the dumb and deluded. Try using the money instead to make your mortgage payments; or feed you kids.
July 11, 2008
10:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ofearghail writes:
The lottery is more than just a tax on the stupid, it is actually a government-sponsored racket that steals millions from citizens each year through deceptive advertising, slick marketing of an impossible dream, and out-and-out lying. I know... I used to work for the lottery in the 1990s.
Lottery PR flaks are some of the most dishonest in the business (of course, to be in PR at all you have to check your integrity at the door). The lottery marketing minions build these dreams that a person can solve all his problems in a second with a ticket, and then they take it further by strongly suggesting that "your chance is right around the corner." Remember the slogan, "you can't win if you don't play"?
The lottery targets this advertising at the people who are the most vulnerable to their lies: the financially desperate who are looking so hard for a way out that they will come to really believe that it WILL happen for them. A big jackpot comes along and these people will spend half their rent money chasing that dream.
The lottery - like any form of gambling - ruins lives and destroys families. And the lottery is the form of gambling with the worst odds of winning. It is truly a "$ucker's bet."
I hope this woman can get the lottery into court and "break the bank."
July 11, 2008
11:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
The "I'm tough" look on the lawyers face cracks me up every time I see it! I'll bet he would would cry over a papercut! Too funny!
July 11, 2008
11:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
benn writes:
Some of you initial posters need to get some standards
July 12, 2008
4:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tiredofthem writes:
oh s#%t unhappy mike hasnt made a comment on this WOW
July 12, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
If the state of Colorado has a betting limit of $5 for casinos why are they allowed to sell scratch tickets for more than $5? Didn't Obama's campaign get in trouble for selling raffle tickets for more than $5? Someone should sue Colorado for being in violation of their own gamblimg laws. How is it that they can get away with selling tickets for more than $5?
July 12, 2008
7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
reformthis writes:
What are the facts in the "frivolous" McDonald's hot coffee case?
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
These are the facts that were presented to the jury:
* By corporate specifications, McDonald's sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
* Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
* Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
* McDonald's admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
* From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
* At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
* McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
* McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
* McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
July 12, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Reform...any moron knows not to put a hot cup of anything between you legs if you are in a moving car. I can't belieive uor society pay tou to be stupid.
July 12, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dhakala writes:
Scratch n sniff tickets just mask the smell of burning money.
July 12, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
RegusPatoff writes:
Reform,
According to most temperature charts, water at 180-190 degrees farenheit would be simmering... near boiling... with observable bubbles in the liquid. Also, water at that temperature would cause third degree burns in an adult in one second or less, not 2-7 seconds. I do realize that your statements are taken directly from one or more law-related websites, but even the "facts" on those sites are not consistent with other data on liquid temperatures. In order for coffee (which is mostly water) to be served at 180-190 degrees, it would have to nearly be boiling when poured into the cup. I think the data presented in the case itself was flawed and inconsistent. I do think, however, that nobody in their right mind should ever put a styrofoam cup (or any cup for that matter) full of hot liquid between their knees or legs to remove a lid or make any type of adjustment.
July 12, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
Ricky Lee
Look closer. She's a hag.
She's trying to win something just like anyone else. Beat the opposition to death with a lawyer. they are hoping Texaco pays them off just to shut up. The oldest scam going.
July 12, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
cdmdenver writes:
TAX RITTER AT WORK AGAIN!
IF HE CAN'T STEAL YOUR MONEY
ONE WAY, HE'LL COME UP WITH
ANOTHER WAY!
NEW NAME FOR COLORADO LOTTERY=
COLORADO INCOME TAX
July 12, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
hakj, the article clearly states they are suing Texaco because the State has immunity
"In the Watkins lawsuit, the state Supreme Court recently ruled that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act barred suing the state, so Carey has changed the defendant to the retailer, Texaco. He hopes to have the lawsuit certified as a class action suit"
July 12, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Huh? Ritter made you buy a ticket cdmdenver?
July 12, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
Hakj
Yup, I goofed.
Suing the Lottery is weird. That's like suing a prostitute because she's a hag and you were drunk. The reality is that one has to be responsible for their actions.
July 12, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Maybe the time has arrived to expand the legal definition for a frivolous lawsuit.
I proposed we add: A lawsuit shall be judged frivolous if an idiot does something patently stupid and then attempts to assign blame to someone else for their own stupidity in court.
Examples include:
The plaintiff inflicts a concussion on himself by striking his own head with a hammer then sues the manufacturer for not adding a warning label that the hammer may cause injury when applied to the skull of the user.
The plaintiff drives his car off a cliff and sues the automobile manufacturer for not installing airbags on the roof to protect the occupants after a tumbling fall in excess of 500-feet.
The plaintiff attempts to siphon gasoline with a short hose starting the suction by mouth and accidentally swallows gasoline. He then sues the hose manufacturer for not putting a warning label on the hose not to do that.
The plaintiff goes to a carnival, pays $5 to play a game, wins the game, and gets a $2 prize. He then sues because, after having his prize appraised at a cost of $50, he finds out that it is worth only $2.
The plaintiff puts a hot cup of coffee between her legs and attempts to remove the tight lid while driving in traffic. She then spills hot coffee on her legs, gets burned, and causes a wreck because she was in too much of a hurry to pull over and remove the lid.
The plaintiff buys a scratch game ticket and looses.
July 12, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Damages? $2.00!
July 12, 2008
6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
SockRay: great analogy, in a twisted sort of way.
Ricky: dude you need a cold shower. Funny though! ;-)
July 13, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
bone writes:
so ?....let me get this straight...you write a story about essential "fraud"....and end it with an essential "advertisement" for scratch and sniff..........who is writing these stories ?...2nd graders ?......if i want to scratch and sniff, i can get that for free...i'll scratch my butt and sniff my finger...this was the same as writing a story about a gas station with pumps that are inaccurate, and ending it with "but they have a free car wash with a fill up"