jili tutorial

Montana Lawmakers Demand More Transparency in Lottery–Intralot Contract Dispute

By jili tutorial · September 26, 2026

Montana Lawmakers Demand More Transparency in Lottery–Intralot Contract Dispute

Montana lawmakers are pressing state Lottery Director Bob Brown for answers after he refused to give auditors access to emails related to a major contract with gambling technology firm Intralot. What began as a routine legislative audit has grown into a wider debate about how public agencies negotiate contracts, when they can claim privilege, and whether an existing vendor received special treatment.

At the center of the dispute is a contract that will shape Montana’s lottery and sports betting operations for years. The controversy also raises practical questions for anyone who monitors government decision-making: How should a public agency handle an unsolicited proposal from a vendor? What happens when officials resist an audit? And when does legal privilege cross the line into obstruction?

Background: Intralot’s Long Relationship with Montana

Intralot is a Greek-headquartered gambling technology company with a significant footprint in the United States. Its U.S. subsidiary entered into an agreement with Major League Baseball in July 2020, giving the company a high-profile presence in the sports world. Over the years, Intralot has supplied lottery systems and games to multiple state lotteries. It introduced Fast Play games to the Illinois State Lottery roughly six years before the current controversy, and it operates two major products in Montana: Montana Millionaire and Montana Sports Bet.

For many years, Intralot was Montana’s main technology provider for those products. When the previous contract expired, the state had to decide whether to renew that relationship or open the work to other vendors. That decision set off a chain of events that has now drawn scrutiny from the state legislature.

The Competitive Bidding Dispute

The public dispute surfaced in September 2024, when the Montana Lottery Commission voted unanimously to put the contract out for competitive bidding. On the surface, that seemed like a straightforward decision. Competitive bidding is generally designed to ensure that the state receives the best possible value and that all qualified vendors have a fair chance to win public contracts.

But the process did not go as planned. Lottery Director Bob Brown paused the bidding process to consider an unsolicited proposal from Intralot. An unsolicited proposal occurs when a company approaches a government agency with an offer that was not requested through an open procurement process. Such proposals are not inherently improper, but they require careful scrutiny because they bypass the usual competitive safeguards.

Members of the citizen commission were alarmed. Some questioned whether Brown’s decision to pause the bidding process would lead to what they described as a possible “sweetheart deal” for Intralot. The concern was not just about fairness; it was about money. Under the previous agreement, Intralot received 8% of gambling sales from the products it operated. Its unsolicited proposal did not mention any reduction in that rate.

Lawmakers responded with a strong message: if the Montana Lottery did not return to a competitive bidding process, they would withhold funding. Faced with that pressure, the lottery restarted the bidding process. Intralot competed and eventually won the new contract — this time at a rate of 5.05%. State auditors estimate that the lower rate will save Montana roughly $17.6 million over the contract’s seven-year term.

What Is an Unsolicited Proposal?

Understanding the controversy requires a closer look at unsolicited proposals. In a traditional competitive bid, a government agency publishes a request for proposals or invitations for bids. Vendors submit sealed bids or proposals, and the agency evaluates them using published criteria. This process is meant to prevent favoritism and to give taxpayers confidence that contracts are awarded on merit.

An unsolicited proposal, by contrast, comes from the vendor’s initiative. The company may approach the agency with a unique solution, a cost-saving idea, or a new technology. In some cases, an unsolicited proposal can benefit the public. In other cases, it can allow an incumbent vendor to continue doing business without competing on price or service quality.

The Montana situation shows why transparency is so important in these cases. When an agency leader pauses an open bidding process to consider an unsolicited proposal from the current vendor, the public is entitled to know how and why that decision was made. That is exactly why auditors wanted access to Brown’s emails.

The Audit: What Did Auditors Want and Why?

During the Legislative Audit Committee hearing on September 18, lawmakers examined how the contract negotiations were handled. Auditors were reviewing not just the final decision, but also the steps that led to it. Their central questions included:

To answer these questions, auditors asked for access to Brown’s emails. They wanted to see communications that could shed light on the decision-making process, including whether any conflicts of interest existed. Brown provided most of the emails but withheld others. He said attorneys had designated the withheld messages as confidential or privileged.

The distinction matters. Attorney-client privilege protects certain communications between government lawyers and their clients. So do confidential legal work-product protections. But when a public agency uses such claims to shield records from an audit, it can create the appearance that something is being hidden.

Lawmakers did not see it as a settled matter. Sen. Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, accused the Lottery of “obstructing” auditors. His criticism reflected a broader concern: if state officials can decide which records to release, an audit may never be fully complete.

Who Else Restricted Auditor Access?

The audit report identified not only the Lottery but also the Department of Administration and the office of Governor Greg Gianforte as agencies that restricted auditors’ access to certain information. That fact broadened the transparency issue beyond Brown and Intralot.

It is unclear from the audit exactly what information those other agencies withheld or why. However, the pattern was concerning enough for lawmakers to demand a fuller explanation. When multiple executive-branch offices limit an auditor’s ability to review documents, it can undermine public confidence in the entire review process.

A Key Unanswered Question: Where Did the Proposal Come From?

One of the most unusual findings in the audit was that auditors could not determine how Intralot’s unsolicited proposal actually reached the Montana Lottery. Lottery officials told investigators that they could not recall the circumstances surrounding how the proposal arrived outside the competitive procurement process.

For a major state contract, that is a significant gap in the record. Procurement files should normally document when a proposal was received, how it was reviewed, and who decided to act on it. If the public record is missing that basic information, then it becomes much harder to prove that the process was fair.

Intralot itself has not appeared at public hearings concerning the controversy. Neither company representatives nor its registered Montana lobbyists have come forward to answer questions. That does not violate any law, but it does leave important questions unanswered.

No Corruption Allegation, But Serious Process Questions

It is important to note what this audit does not say. The audit has not accused Brown of corruption, and it has not accused Intralot of wrongdoing. The issues are more subtle — and in some ways more important.

The questions raised in Montana are about whether the procurement process was followed, whether public records were appropriately disclosed, and whether the state adequately handled an unsolicited offer before eventually returning to competitive bidding. These are process-related concerns, but they have real consequences. Public agencies spend taxpayer money, and contracts of this size shape the services that citizens receive.

Brown defended his decision during the September 18 hearing, saying he explored Intralot’s proposal because he believed doing so was in Montana’s best interests. That explanation may be true. But the audit highlights why intentions alone are not enough. Government decision-making must be documented and open to review, especially when a major vendor stands to benefit.

Why This Case Matters

Public procurement rules are not bureaucratic red tape. They are safeguards that protect the public interest. When a state accepts bids and evaluates them fairly, taxpayers can be confident that the winner earned the contract. When that process is bypassed — or when the record is incomplete — the public cannot be sure what happened.

The Montana situation also illustrates the importance of public records access. Government transparency does not mean handing over every email automatically. It means respecting legal exemptions while still providing enough information for independent oversight.

In this case, the claim of attorney-client privilege may be entirely valid. But lawmakers and auditors have a duty to test that claim. Without access to the underlying records, they cannot verify whether the privilege was used appropriately or merely as a way to avoid scrutiny.

What Comes Next?

The legislative audit has wrapped up, but the broader accountability process is not over. Lawmakers may demand additional documents. They may call additional witnesses or amend state procurement rules to address unsolicited proposals more explicitly. They may also review how state agencies respond to auditors in the future.

For citizens, the lesson is simple: competitive bidding and transparency are essential tools for ensuring that public contracts are awarded fairly. The Intralot case is a reminder that even established companies and long-serving officials must be held to a high standard.

Montana is not facing a simple story of corruption. It is facing something more common and more complex: a public agency that tried to navigate a difficult procurement decision without fully accounting for its actions. That is why the state’s auditors pushed for access to emails, and why lawmakers are continuing to ask questions long after the hearing ended.