Was the Stingrays’ paid Chuck-A-Puck million-dollar promotion likely an illegal lottery in 2006?

Plain-English summary

In 2006, the South Carolina Attorney General said the Stingrays' proposed “Chuck-A-Puck” promotion would probably be an illegal lottery. Fans would pay a small amount for a puck, throw it toward a target to qualify, and the closest participant would attempt a final shot through a goal opening for a million-dollar prize paid in installments.

The opinion identified three lottery elements: a prize, consideration paid for the opportunity, and chance in awarding the prize. It judged chance to be the dominant factor in the described competition, even though tossing and shooting a puck involved skill. It analogized the promotion to an earlier hole-in-one competition that the office had regarded as likely a lottery.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why did the payment matter?
A: Each participant would buy a puck or similar item for the chance to compete, supplying the consideration element the opinion described.

Q: Did a skill component keep the promotion outside lottery law?
A: The Attorney General said chance dominated the result in this particular two-stage contest, so skill did not remove the lottery concern.

Q: Did the opinion say every hockey skill contest was a lottery?
A: No. It evaluated the proposed paid puck toss and final prize shot, and said that structure probably met the lottery elements.

Background and statutory framework

The Secretary of State's office forwarded the team's five-step promotion to the Attorney General. The opinion applied the prize, payment, and chance test and referred to earlier analysis of a golf hole-in-one prize. Its conclusion was expressly probabilistic and depended on the proposed contest structure.

Citations and references

The linked opinion cites Darlington Theatres v. Coker for the lottery elements and describes the earlier Attorney General hole-in-one opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-31-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/06july31brown.pdf

Original opinion text

J

HENRY Mehl.ASTER
ATIORNEY GENERAL

July 31 , 2006

Charles E. Brown, Director of Investigations
South Carolina Secretary of State's Office
Post Office Box 11350
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Dear Mr. Brown:
You forwarded a letter to this office regarding a proposed promotion, Chuck-A-Puck, that the South Carolina Stingrays wish to conduct. The promotion is structured as follows:

1. Attendees at each Stingrays home game will be offered the opportunity to purchase
   a Stingrays puck or similar item for a small fee, one to two dollars.

i6 :

2. On the night of purchase, each participant will be able to aim and then toss his
   puck from his seat onto the ice attempting to land it closest to a bulls-eye or other target.

I
Ii

3. The individual landing his puck closest to the target point wilJ be able to
   participate in the final round.
4. That individual from a selected distance wilJ attempt to shoot a regulation puck
   from a specified distance through a hole in a board covering the hockey goal.
5. If the individual is able to shoot the puck entirely through the slot into the goal
   from the designated shooting point, the participant will win $1 ,000,000.00 payable in installments. It has been questioned whether such promotion v iolates State law.

This State's Constitution and statutes prohibits lotteries in this State. As set forth in Darlington Theatres v. Coker, 190 S.C. 282, 2 S. E.2d 782 ( 1962), the elements of a lottery are the offering of a prize, the payment of money or other consideration for the opportunity to win a prize, and the awarding of the prize by chance.

Mr. Brown
Page2
July 31, 2006

I

Enclosed is a copy of a prior opinion of this office dated September 5, 1995 which dealt with a proposed hole-in-one competition. That opinion recognized that other prior opinions of this office had concluded that playing the game of golf predominantly involves skill, not chance, as it relates to lotteries. Another opinion of this office dated March 24, 1986 defined "chance" for purposes of a lottery as " ... the attempt to attain certain ends, not by skill or any other known nor fixed rules, but by the happening of a subsequent event, incapable of ascertainment or accomplishment by means of human foresight or ingenuity.. .It is not necessary that this element of chance be pure chance, but it may be accompanied by an element of calculation or event of certainty; it is sufficient if chance is the dominant or controlling factor." The enclosed opinion concluded that the proposed hole-inone competition would likely constitute a lottery, as well as gambling, also prohibited by State law. The opinion stated that
[w]e find particularly persuasive the reasoning that, unlike a golf tournament, where skill is primarily involved, the making of a hole-in-one "is such a fortuitous event that skill is almost an irrelevant factor." Consistent with the referenced opinion, it is my opinion that the proposed Stingrays promotion would also probably constitute an illegal lottery as it involves the necessary three elements of a lottery as outlined above. In my opinion, the element of chance in the proposed promotion dominates over any element of skill in determining a winner is such a competition. With kind regards, I am, Very truly yours,

cf}r,,1..l-f ;{Ja.fl___

I

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

&~,(l~;;~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General