A man in Long Beach, CA is suing the State of California and the California Lottery Commission because they refuse to pay off on a $5 million winning ticket (Story here). The reason that the state refuses to pay is that the man's son bought the ticket; the son is 16 years old and you must be 18 years old or older to play the lottery.

My question: does the plaintiff have a colorable cause of action?

I think that it may depend on the relationship between the Lottery Commission and the establishment that sold the lad the ticket. If the latter is an agent for the former, then, I presume, it has some responsibility to ascertain the eligibility of the purchaser. Because they willingly took his money for the ticket, there may be implied consent of some sort.

Of course, if the defendants prevail here, it seems to me that they should be required to reimburse all ineligible (e.g., underage) ticket purchasers; that might run to more than $5 million (if it's even possible to determine who is owed what).

What do our learned legal minds think about this?

How about all those other legal minds?

I think that similar cases where underage people have won large amounts at slots in Vegas lost when they tried to sue. Don't know if that's applicable but seems to be.

This is where Mastermindreader is sorely missed ...

I think not, sadly. Essentially the bet is void.

It may well vary from state to state, and the issue of agency, as Bill points out, may come into play. For that reason, it may also depend on whether the ticket was bought from a machine or a human being. Good arguments to be made on both sides.

There might also be a reasonable class action lawsuit against the Commission on behalf of any minor who sold a ticket by any of the affiliates. The plaintiffs wouldn't get any kind of real money, but the lawyers could make a killing. That's how class actions go. It's not about compensation; it's about deterrence.