[TomMarius]

It is unreasonable. The lottery has written rules that you are not obliged to accept - but you can't claim the prize if you do not. The lottery is a business and the business depends on having the winner publicized. It's hardly reasonable to want to keep the prize while breaking the rules.

[DerfNet]

I think the lottery is doing just fine, and I'd bet most lottery players don't know the names of any lottery winners.

[TomMarius]

Many people wouldn't trust a lottery in which no one has ever provably won.

[FrozenTuna]

So now that she has major assets ($560 M in potential earnings), lets call her a business. Her business depends on her staying anonymous and collecting these earnings. It's hardly reasonable to deny the business that owns a $560M lottery ticket their money.

See what I did there?

[TomMarius]

She has no assets because she didn't fulfill the requirements and rules of the competition. This is like supplying no work but demanding a payment anyways.

[FrozenTuna]

After sitting on it for a while, yea. I've changed my mind. You're right.

[tinus_hn]

She could have used an anonymous trust if she had thought of it in advance, so the defense the lottery depends on her being identified doesn’t work.

[TomMarius]

I don't think the rules of the lottery allow this, so no.

[tinus_hn]

The article states the rules and the law allow it, so yes.

[TomMarius]

Okay, then you're right that she could've done that. She didn't though...