George v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
945 N.E.2d 150
Ind.2011Background
- NCAA allocated championship tickets by random selection from offers that included face value and a nonrefundable handling fee.
- Applicants could submit up to 10 offers per application; only one could be accepted and refunds were issued for rejected offers, but handling fees were not refunded.
- This case concerns the 2009 Final Four ticket distribution; plaintiffs alleged the process was an unlawful lottery under Indiana law.
- The Indiana Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the NCAA process constitutes a lottery, and if so, whether it falls within a contract exception or is barred by in pari delicto.
- The court held the NCAA process is not a lottery because there was no prize at the time of application; the primary market for tickets is created by the NCAA and the face value equals fair-market value; thus no prize, hence no lottery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NCAA's ticket allocation constitute a lottery under Indiana law? | George contends it is a lottery. | NCAA contends it is not a lottery. | No lottery under Indiana law. |
| If lottery, does it fall within bona fide business transactions exception? | George argues it does not fit the exception. | NCAA asserts it falls within the contract exception. | Not reached; premise (lottery) not established. |
| If lottery, are claims barred by in pari delicto? | George argues no bar. | NCAA argues in pari delicto applies. | Not reached; premise (lottery) not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinder v. Music Operating, Inc., 237 Ind. 33, 142 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 1957) (defined lottery as prize-by-chance with consideration)
- State v. Nixon, 270 Ind. 192, 384 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 1979) (broadened lottery definition in constitutional context)
- Lesher v. Baltimore Football Club, 496 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (summary-affirmed non-lottery; primary market value analysis)
- FCC v. American Broad. Co., 347 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1954) (lawful scope of lottery definitions; context of gambling regulation)
- Phalen v. Virginia, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 163 (U.S. 1850) (historical view on lotteries and nuisance)