What I think is being missed here is that the state offered….wait for it…EXACTLY what they are suing for. Plus a small (read large) and unearned, lawyer fee.

This is one thing which absolutely burns me up. It also happened with the “million little pieces” book thing. The lawyer does absolutely nothing but take in free money. How is that ethical?

Oh, yeah… lawyers.

Every time I see a case like this it see that the lawyers, like everbody else, realize that not everyone who is “entitled” to a rebate is going to do the legwork or even know about it. Of course, the lawyer is just trying to help everyone get their fair share right?

Not even close. They know that most will not even receive the rebate, but that each one will count towards computing their fee. The more counted, the higher the fee. That’s why we have opt out instead of opt in provisions for class actions.

I think most people play scratchers for the momentary rush that comes with gambling. Its more of a spur of the moment or impulse purchase then a calculated risk.

I know when I used $20 in scratch offs as reward for my employees it worked better then $20 in cash.

Is the class action reasonable? Perhaps, but only if its goal is to stop scratch off type games.

Are the plaintiffs reasonable? Yes, but with a caveat.

I play the horses. It’s possible with a lot of work and careful planning to make a modest profit. This is because it’s possible to find bets that pay more than break even. State lottery games however are losing propositions. (math alert: break even payout = bet cost/probability of winning).

I’ve never understood the mentality of “investing” in a negative cash flow venture (one with payoff below break even). It’s like making a product for $300; selling it for $295; then trying to make up the difference in volume. Sounds more like gambling to me.

In racing circles a person who “invests” a lot of money on a one time event for an anticipated 5% profit is called a Bridge Jumper. Presumably it’s assumed such a person took out a mortgage to finance the venture. (IOW: Bridge Jumper = Stupid Bettor)

Still, the large “investor” in scratch offs is the only one paying attention to the odds of winning. The rest are either spur-of-the-moment buyers or those who become glassy-eyed at the thought of any calculation. The “investors” must constitute a mighty small group.

OTOH, the very same “investors” should have a deep understanding of the game which includes the knowledge of the possibility of buying tickets after the chance of winning has gone to zero.

Conclusion: the class action is a dumb idea but gives the “investor” another shot at winning.