Lottoland goes 2-for-2 in legal lottery disputes in Australia

The last couple of years, Lottoland has been in more of a mess. The multinational betting company based in Gibraltar has been the target of two separate litigation in Australia this year relating to how it prices its goods, and has also been exposed to investigation by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) on claims that it was manipulating the game. However, it has been able to defend itself fairly each time, with the recent victory coming from a vote to throw a lawsuit of supposed unpaid winnings for AUD$238 million ($173.57 million). The court found the defendant should have done a decent job reading the fine print.

The main claim to fame in Lottoland is the use of international lottery numbers to create a random lottery draw. It uses alternatives like the U.S. Powerball for its game, but it does not encourage players to make ticket sales for such particular lotteries – after the event, it's all over. But one person skipped the idea and bought a ticket for what she thought was the real Powerball, not Lottoland's proposed THU Jackpot game. When she was disqualified from her argument to have won the huge AUD$126 million ($91.91 million) prize, she turned around and sued the company, causing the case to go to court and alleging that the operator was deceiving the public.

Subsequently, Australia's Northern Territory Racing Commission (NTRC) received a different complaint from another person who made the same claim in essence. He thought he'd been tricked out of the $173.57 million payout due to Lottoland's deceptive publicity strategies and was under the assumption that he was buying an real Powerball ticket, not the "U.S. Power" lottery ticket that he actually bought.

The commission listened intently to both aspects of the new case before reaching a decision. Lottoland revealed how the term "Powerball" has not been used in any of its events since 2016, long before the individuals had participated. When the trial turned to the issue of using misleading publicity techniques, Lottoland defended itself by pointing out that the results of the Powerball lottery had already been revealed in both cases before the two claimants actually purchased their tickets.

That was enough for the NTRC to conclude there there was no validity in either case, and that both merited being discarded. The cases may, however, drudge up old resentment against Lottoland and push it to justify its commercial practices once more. It has been doing so for the last two years at least, and will most likely be able to withstand criticism again.