I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment about winning the lottery that seems pretty true:<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_won_a_656_million_dollar_lottery_what_do/chba4bf/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskReddit" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_...</a><p>Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.
If you don't happen to read the article and think to mention the anonymous trust way of accepting the winnings. She can't do that either.<p>"The state allows people to form an anonymous trust, NewHampshire.com reported, but it’s a moot point for the woman — she signed her name on the back of the ticket shortly after winning, and altering the signature would nullify the ticket."<p>Oh and an excellent tidbit out of the story is that the attorney representing her actually blogged about the winner having been in NH and how the winner should not sign the back of the ticket. Apparently the ticket winner is now using that attorney to represent her in the courts. <a href="https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-Blog/2018/January/Attorney-William-Shaheen-Has-Advice-for-New-Powe.aspx" rel="nofollow">https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-Blog/2018/...</a>
I understand why people don't want everyone to know they're rich. I'm rich (not $560M, but some) and you can figure that out from various news stories, and it does affect relationships somewhat. More so outside Silicon Valley.<p>On the other hand, I understand why lotteries want to publicize winners in their marketing.<p>A fair deal might be, that the publicity value is defined to be X% (say 10%) of the prize, and you can take the full prize with publicity, or the prize - X% anonymously.
The lottery/state officials' story seems to be somewhat at odds with itself.<p>They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it. Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on the ticket and then do the public part via a trust.<p>This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but they can't say that they're fighting in the interest of openness by not allowing this but allowing the anonymous trust in the first place.
Related: I wonder if any analysis on the life outcomes of another jackpot system, "sold company for a windfall", have been done. I appreciate the bad lotto result stories because they confirm my correct bias that lotto should not be played because it is a tax on not understanding probability (except at about 350M for powerball, in which case your enemy is not expected value but variance). However, no such analysis seems to have been done on the startup ecosystem, which generally relies on big exit stories for 'free marketing'.
In the UK, the National Lottery allows anonymous retrieval of the winnings and yet there is still a very large amount of trust that there is no fraudulent activity.
The anonymity means you do not get financial advice from the lottery trust which seems like a pretty fair trade off.
This is what Chinese lottery winners do :)<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%BD%A9%E7%A5%A8%E9%A2%86%E5%A5%96&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaycTGy6PZAhUqiVQKHUEvC6cQ_AUICygC&biw=1384&bih=740" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%BD%A9%E7%A5%A8%E9%A2%86%...</a>
I honestly don't see the issue. The only reason the lotto works is because people know you can win and it's not rigged, and the only way you can know that is by making the winners public. Finally, the only reason said lottery was $XXXM is because of the people who tried and failed, funding it. I doubt lotteries would pay such large amounts long term if anonymous lotteries were standard as fraud is inevitable.<p>Being able to take half a billion dollars of free money anonymously and safely is hardly a right. I mean, you could simply not take it.<p>Seems fair to me. Am I missing something?
My understanding is that the lotto wants free advertising at the cost of the winners being made very public.<p>It seems like this individual is doing a tremendous public service by taking this to court. I think most of us would balk at the risk of somehow losing the millions of dollars.
On one hand, I can understand the winner's desire to stay anonymous -- it has to be quite a magnet for every estranged relative and con-artist, not to mention any anxiety that may arise in the future when dealing with immediate family and friends when it comes to holidays, birthdays, and even a simple meal out.<p>And, on top of that, the stress of simply <i>managing</i> that amount of money so you don't end up as another "they blew it all" story about lottery winners.<p>That said: <i>I wish I had her problem.</i><p>Most people probably would say the same. However, for a half-billion dollars I'd just assume that managing both the money and the people you have to interact with <i>was my new job.</i><p>And, at some point...things would have to improve. You change your phone number. You change your address. You identify the moochers and the honest friends. You've hired a lawyer and a financial planner. And, on top of all that, you know that you and your loved ones won't want for food, shelter or health care. <i>Ever.</i> And that you can use some of your fortune to make a positive impact on your community, <i>as you see fit.</i><p>I hope she wins her case, but if she doesn't...I'd still trade places with her in a hot minute.
I have a dissenting opinion to this and if you don't want to play by the rules of a game then you shouldn't play. The whole point of the rule is so that the State can advertise that someone won to make more participants in the lottery.
I think it's a terrible thing to be fully named to the public. Some people say here, it would be necessary, so people could trust the lottery. BS. The winning could be faked also, so if you don't trust your lottery so don't play.
On the other side .. if you win such amount of money, you will lose all your friends and family member anyway. Nobody can keep up with your new lifestyle. So you have to go to far away anyway. Bad luck or so ..<p>Somebody remember this ..
Improbably Frequent Lottery Winners <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15262440" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15262440</a>
There's an important reason to make these winners public: to prevent corruption. Otherwise it would be easier to bad actors to direct lottery "winnings" to their friends or as bribes (of course it can still happen: <a href="https://www.quora.com/Did-Whitey-Bulger-really-win-the-lottery" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/Did-Whitey-Bulger-really-win-the-lotte...</a>)<p>This is the same reason why arrest records are public everywhere in the US: secret arrests are dangerous.<p>Of course this default-public provides opportunity for other kinds of abuse as well, but, at least in the lottery case, it's by definition opt in.
I wonder if she can have her name legally changed prior to picking up the ticket, and then changed back afterwards. I'm not sure if the signature on the back matters in that case.
Aren't court proceedings public record? Her name would come out that way even if she wins. Can she grant another person the authority to sue on her behalf and remain anonymous?
I think the operator of a lottery-style gambling game has an obligation to publish its list of winners. It does <i>not</i> have an obligation to say how much they won.<p>This prevents the operator from simply saying someone has won and never paying out. In theory, you could go around to everyone on the list and ask them if they won a lottery prize. If anyone denies it, the operator might be pocketing prize money.<p>It is clear from the available evidence that publishing the amount that someone has won does harm to the winners. It becomes feedstock for a "people to rob or defraud" list. The same principle is applied to the secret ballot, wherein anyone can find out if you voted in an election or not, but they cannot know whom you voted for unless you tell them yourself. You can, of course, lie to them if you desire.<p><pre><code> Q: Ma'am, did you win the lottery this week?
A: Yes. My name is on the list, isn't it?
Q: How much did you win?
A: A dollar.
Q: You didn't win the jackpot?
That's a new car, isn't it?
A: Of course not.
I got a good deal on the financing, that's all.
Q: And the 12-foot bronze statue of
David Hasselhoff's Baywatch character?
A: I found it at a dump.
Q: Clearly, you also hired Peter Dinklage
to dress up as Tyrion for your birthday party.
A: That's just an enthusiastic cosplayer.
</code></pre>
It's also difficult to enjoy being rich without making it glaringly obvious that you have money, so I'm not seeing any pressing need for the judge to anonymize this particular winner after the fact. It might be warranted for the state to look into legislation that places greater weight on the financial privacy of future winners.
Both her, and Shane Missler, who won the Mega Millions in January should just disappear. I think her problem is that she wants her life to remain largely the same. Well it can't and it won't. But a few hundred million dollars gives you plenty of opportunities to start over, at any age, and take care of your inner circle from wherever in the world you want to live.
I understand the desire to be anonymous, but things like this get out. While taking this route might benefit future winners, it will likely make her own situation worse via the "Streisand effect": <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect</a>
I'm surprised you can't set up a shell corporation to collect the winnings and then pay you a monthly salary or something. Probably not proof against the most sophisticated of account thieves, but it keeps your name out of the papers. Is part of the law that the person who bought the ticket must be the one to redeem it?<p>Or maybe just hire an accountant/lawyer to cash the ticket and transfer the funds to her account? I mean she's got the money now.
I think this is a good argument for restructuring the lottery. From what I gather, the big jackpots used to be smaller and the small wins used to be more frequent. They changed how it works because the larger the payouts of the big jackpot, the more of a ticket buying frenzy you have.<p>Everyone actually wants to win. But not necessarily life changing amounts of money of this magnitude. We should go back to more small wins and smaller jackpots.
I will bookmark this, and hopefully someone updates the story of what happened when the case has been settled.<p>On one side, you can see why the lady was asking for anonymity - exposing her could really endanger her life. She would be a target for anyone, who would want a piece of that $500 million dollars of reason. On the other side, you see that the state wants to advertise and use this as a marketing ploy to entice other people to play.
Is this standard practice in the US (forcing people out anonymity when they win at the lottery), or is this in this state only?<p>Here in France you have the choice (the lottery is not even encouraging you that much to go public).
Couldn’t she just set up a trust where she only gets a set income each year, and has no access to the rest? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of being a target for stealing/violence?
Would it be possible to take the winnings non anonymously and immediately donate 100% to a ‘charity/foundation’ (that funnels money back to her at constant rate)?
She can likely afford some pretty good security with her winnings.<p>Her problem is not unique; any wealthy celebrity has had to deal with the same after all.
I never understood why they require you to release your name and picture.<p>I would attempt and wear a costume or mask to the announcement event if I won.
Given the size of the prize involved, it seems like she could have had a duplicate "winning ticket" made, sans signature on the back. This would have had to have been done before all the publicity about the signed ticket though.<p>Even with watermarks, etc., the cost to manufacture an exact replica ticket couldn't be more than a few thousand dollars. Even if it were $100K to buy some specialized equipment, it would still seem like a worthwhile investment.