jili tutorial

$1.35B Mega Millions Winner Drops Lawsuit: The Cost of Anonymity in a Record Jackpot

By jili tutorial · September 18, 2026

$1.35B Mega Millions Winner Drops Lawsuit: The Cost of Anonymity in a Record Jackpot

The largest lottery win in Maine’s history has not only brought a staggering $1.35 billion to one man but also sparked a multi-year legal battle that ultimately cost him the very privacy he sought to protect. The winner, who sued his ex-partner for allegedly leaking his identity, has now moved to dismiss the case—after a federal appeals court ruled he could not keep the proceedings secret. This saga highlights the tension between lottery anonymity laws, contract enforcement, and the public’s right to open court proceedings.

Background: The Record-Breaking Win and the Secrecy Pact

In early 2023, a Maine resident—identified in court documents only as “John Doe”—claimed the $1.35 billion Mega Millions jackpot, the largest single-ticket win in the state’s history. Like many high-stakes winners, Doe was deeply concerned about his safety, privacy, and that of his young daughter. To shield their identities, he and his ex-partner, referred to pseudonymously as “Sara Smith,” signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) shortly after the win.

According to the lawsuit filed in November 2023, the NDA was designed to “promote the safety and security” of Doe, Smith, and their child, and to prevent the “irreparable harm” that could result if the media or public learned their names and home address. Such agreements are not uncommon for lottery winners, especially in states like Maine that allow winners to remain anonymous (though the state has since tightened rules). However, this NDA soon became the center of a bitter dispute.

The NDA and Its Alleged Violation

Doe alleged that Smith violated the agreement by disclosing the win to his father and stepmother. The lawsuit sought an injunction barring her from making any further disclosures, compelling her to reveal everyone she had informed, and demanding compensatory damages of at least $100,000 for each unauthorized disclosure. The complaint framed these leaks as a direct threat to the family’s safety, arguing that once information spreads, it is impossible to control the consequences.

Why $100,000 Per Disclosure?

The $100,000 figure reflects the heightened stakes of lottery anonymity. For context, similar NDA clauses in high-value lottery or inheritance disputes often set penalties at a fraction of the jackpot to deter leaks. Doe’s legal team likely calculated that the sheer magnitude of the win made such sums a credible deterrent, though Smith’s lawyers later argued the lawsuit was a “sham” designed to pressure her in an ongoing child custody battle.

The case took a dramatic turn when Doe attempted to keep the trial closed to the public. He argued that a closed trial was necessary to prevent the media from discovering his identity—the very outcome he sought to avoid by filing the lawsuit. However, both the district court and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that request.

The appellate panel upheld the lower court’s ruling in April 2025, stating that a closed trial would run “hard against [the] historic concept of what the courts are and what they are not in this country.” This principle—rooted in the First Amendment and centuries of common law—means that court proceedings are presumptively open, even when the parties wish otherwise. Doe’s lawyers acknowledged the unavoidable Catch-22 in their motion to dismiss: “Even if plaintiff were to win on his claims, his identity and confidential information would be revealed to the media and public, which is exactly what he brought suit to avoid.”

What Is a Catch-22 in Litigation?

A legal Catch-22 arises when every available remedy leads to the harm the plaintiff is trying to prevent. Here, pursuing the lawsuit forced Doe to expose his identity in court, while dropping it left him without recourse against the alleged leaks. This paradox is a cautionary tale for lottery winners who seek legal enforcement of secrecy.

The Custody Battle and Counterclaims

Smith’s lawyers, led by attorney Peter Brann, denied that their client violated the NDA. They argued that the lawsuit was a tactic to gain leverage in a child custody dispute—a common intersection when large sums of money and family dynamics collide. Smith alleged in a court filing that Doe had hired a private security team that followed her and her daughter daily, creating a “harassing environment.” This claim paints a picture of a win that fractured a co-parenting relationship, turning legal and financial obligations into a weapon.

The custody context is crucial: NDA disputes involving ex-partners often devolve into accusations of bad faith, with each side accusing the other of using the agreement to control family interactions. In this case, Smith’s defense positioned the lawsuit as an overreach, arguing that Doe was trying to silence her in matters related to their child’s welfare.

The Dismissal Motion: A Strategic Retreat?

On September 16, Doe’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily. However, the motion was filed “without prejudice,” meaning Doe retains the right to refile the same claims at a later date. This tactic is often used when a plaintiff wants to avoid an adverse ruling or save face without giving up the case permanently.

Smith’s Attorney Opposes Dismissal

Peter Brann, representing Smith, told the Portland Press Herald that he plans to oppose the motion. His reasoning: “Which means that they can turn around and file another baseless lawsuit against the defendant tomorrow. And that, I do not want. … It should never have been filed to begin with.” Brann’s objection underscores the risk of “without prejudice” dismissals—they can be used as a pressure tactic, forcing defendants to live under the threat of renewed litigation. If the court grants the dismissal, Smith may seek a ruling that the case be dismissed with prejudice to bar future suits.

Implications for Lottery Winners and NDAs

This saga serves as a stark lesson for anyone winning a life-changing jackpot. Even with a carefully drafted NDA, enforcing secrecy is fraught with difficulty:

Conclusion: The Price of a Jackpot

As the legal standoff concludes—at least for now—the case underscores how a record-breaking jackpot turned a private family disagreement into a multi-year federal court saga. In trying to protect his identity through litigation, the winner achieved the opposite result: his story became public, his legal filings were scrutinized, and his ex-partner’s defense aired details of their custody battle. For future lottery winners, the lesson is clear: sometimes the only way to win anonymity is to avoid the courtroom altogether.