I would expect better of a business professor. Read this:

When Scott Hoover bought a $5 scratch-off ticket in Virginia called "Beginner's Luck" last summer, he carefully studied the odds. Even though he figured his chances of winning were a long shot, he felt the odds were reasonable.

Hoover, a business professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, wasn't surprised when his tickets didn't bring him the $75,000 grand prize, but he was shocked to learn the top prize had been awarded before he bought the ticket.

"I felt duped into buying these things," Hoover said.

He discovered the Virginia State Lottery was continuing to sell tickets for games in which the top prizes were no longer available. Public records showed that someone had already won the top prize one month before Hoover played. He is now suing the state of Virginia for breach of contract.

I'm not understanding the problem here.

This wasn't a raffle where they kept selling tickets after the winning number was called. It was a pre-printed lottery ticket, with its destiny already decided - either the printing said you won or it said you lost. Your chances didn't go up or down based on what was printed on other tickets in the game - it was all predetermined, and anyone that plays these scratch off games knows it! And, beyond that, there were many other prizes to be won besides the $75,000 prize, so why should they stop selling the tickets just because the top prize was claimed?

What seems crazy to me is that this professor believes that in a lottery with many multiple prizes, the game should be ended the minute the top prize is awarded. We all know the lottery generally gives one big prize and a lot of smaller prizes, right? But what if this scratch off game worked like this: what if the top prize was $1 million, there were 2 $100K prizes, 5 $50,000 prizes, 10 $10,000 prizes and a bunch of smaller ones. When does the lottery pull that game? When the $1 million prize is claimed, leaving many large prizes out there? Or, maybe when the 100K prizes are claimed, even though the biggest prize is still out there, as well as some other substantial prizes? Who decides when that game is cut off - a disgruntled player?

Point is, there are a predetermined number of scratch off cards with a predetermined number of winners and losers. The cards are (hopefully) randomly distributed to lottery sellers, and the players all have the same chance of winning something. Sounds fair to me, especially when the rules clearly state that it is so.