Is it illegal to use a computer in Maryland to buy an out-of-state lottery ticket?

Plain-English summary

Prince George's County's State's Attorney asked the Attorney General whether a person in Maryland could lawfully use a computer terminal, part of a multistate network, to place an order for an out-of-state lottery ticket. In the scheme described, a Maryland order-entry agent would relay customer orders to a computer in New Jersey, which would transmit them on to buyers in whichever of 23 other states ran the lottery being purchased; the actual ticket never left that other state, and a Maryland winner would have to travel there to claim a prize.

The Attorney General concluded that this arrangement, and variations of it, was unlawful under Maryland's anti-lottery statutes. Article 27, §356 bars selling a lottery ticket or "anything" that promises the holder a payout if a contingency occurs, and the opinion read that language to cover the transaction itself, the exchange of money for a promise of a shot at a prize, even though the physical ticket stayed out of state. The computer terminal used to place the order was itself an unlawful "device or contrivance" designed to evade §356 under a separate provision, §357. The opinion also traced two narrow exceptions the General Assembly carved out in 1973, letting Marylanders possess government-issued out-of-state tickets and letting the state publish lottery results, and found neither exception reached a Maryland-based computer order system.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. 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

Did Maryland's Attorney General say it was legal to place computer orders for out-of-state lottery tickets from Maryland?
No. The opinion concluded that using a computer terminal in Maryland to initiate or facilitate the purchase of an out-of-state lottery ticket violated Article 27, §356, regardless of whether the physical ticket ever entered Maryland.

Did it matter that the buyer never actually held the paper ticket?
No. The opinion read §356 to prohibit selling a ticket, certificate, "or anything" promising a payout on a contingency, and pointed to a Court of Special Appeals decision holding that a "lottery ticket" could be intangible, including a mere exchange of words establishing a stake in a lottery.

Were there any legal exceptions that might have covered this kind of computer order system?
The opinion identified only two narrow 1973 exceptions to Maryland's lottery statutes: permission to possess government-issued out-of-state lottery tickets, and permission to publish lottery results in Maryland. Neither exception addressed a Maryland-based system for ordering out-of-state tickets, so the general prohibition still applied.

Did the opinion rely on how other states had handled similar computer-order lottery schemes?
Yes. The opinion cited a New Jersey appellate decision, State v. Fiola, in which New Jersey's Attorney General had obtained an injunction against a similar intermediary business under a comparable anti-evasion statute, as support for treating the Maryland computer terminal itself as an unlawful device.

Background and statutory framework

Maryland's core anti-lottery prohibition, Article 27, §356, dates to 1828 and bars selling a lottery ticket or certificate, or "anything" promising the holder a payout on a contingency. The Lotteries subtitle of Article 27 reinforces that ban with several related provisions: §360 forbids keeping a house, office, or other place for selling lottery tickets; §362 prohibits possession of lottery tickets; §363 prohibits publishing an account of a lottery; and §357 outlaws any device or contrivance designed to evade §356. Section 358 directs courts to construe these anti-lottery provisions liberally.

Maryland's lottery landscape narrowed further in 1972, when voters ratified Article III, §36 of the state constitution, limiting lottery authorization to a lottery "operated by and for the benefit of the State" (the framework for what became the Maryland State Lottery Agency, set out in Title 9, Subtitle 1 of the State Government Article). The following year, the General Assembly carved out two narrow exceptions to the general prohibition: Chapter 584 of the Laws of Maryland 1973 amended §363 to allow publishing the results of governmental lotteries, and Chapter 774 of the Laws of Maryland 1973 amended §362 to allow Marylanders to possess out-of-state lottery tickets issued by a government. Before those amendments, the opinion noted, this office had already advised in two earlier opinions that possessing or publishing accounts of out-of-state lottery tickets was unlawful.

Applying §356 to the computer-order scheme, the opinion reasoned that the statute reached the transaction of exchanging money for a promise of a chance at a lottery payout, not just the physical hand-off of a ticket, relying on the Court of Special Appeals' holding in Silbert v. State that a "lottery ticket" could be "anything, tangible or intangible," including a spoken agreement about a stake in a lottery. Separately, the opinion concluded the Maryland computer terminal itself, used to receive orders and presumably issue receipts, was a "device or contrivance" barred by §357, drawing support from a New Jersey appellate decision, State v. Fiola, in which the New Jersey Attorney General had enjoined a similar intermediary computer-order business under a comparable state anti-evasion statute.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article 27, §356, Maryland's core anti-lottery prohibition
• Article 27, §357, bar on devices or contrivances designed to evade §356
• Article 27, §358, directing liberal construction of the anti-lottery provisions
• Article 27, §360, bar on keeping a place for selling lottery tickets
• Article 27, §362, bar on possession of lottery tickets (as amended)
• Article 27, §363, bar on publishing an account of a lottery (as amended)
• Article 27, §368, liberal-construction provision applied in Silbert v. State
• Article III, §36 of the Maryland Constitution, limiting lottery authorization to a state-operated lottery
• Title 9, Subtitle 1 of the State Government Article, authorizing the Maryland State Lottery Agency
• Chapter 584 of the Laws of Maryland 1973, amending §363 to allow publication of governmental lottery results
• Chapter 774 of the Laws of Maryland 1973, amending §362 to allow possession of government-issued out-of-state tickets

Cases:

• Silbert v. State, 12 Md. App. 516, 280 A.2d 55 (1971), Maryland Court of Special Appeals
• Gaither v. Cate, 156 Md. 254, 144 A. 239 (1929), Maryland Court of Appeals
• Allen v. State, 18 Md. App. 459, 307 A.2d 493 (1973), Maryland Court of Special Appeals
• State v. Fiola, 242 N.J. Super. 240, 576 A.2d 338 (App. Div. 1990), New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1992/Volume77_1992.pdf (this opinion appears at printed page 78 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

GAMING

Lotteries - Purchase of Out-of-State Lottery Tickets By
Computer Unlawful

                         January 22, 1992

The Honorable Alexander Williams, Jr.
State's Attorney for Prince George's County

   You have requested our opinion whether a person in Maryland may

lawfully use a computer terminal, part of a computer network
encompassing several states, to initiate the purchase of out-of-state lottery
tickets.

  For the reasons stated below, we conclude that a person may not use

a computer in Maryland to initiate or otherwise facilitate the purchase of
out-of-state lottery tickets.

                                  I

                           Background

   The specific activity described in the materials accompanying your

request for our opinion indicates that a Maryland order entry agent would
receive orders from customers in Maryland for the purchase of out-of-state
lottery tickets. The requests would be electronically transmitted to a
computer in New Jersey that would, in turn, transmit orders to buyers in
other states conducting lotteries. The buyers would retain custody of the
actual lottery tickets in their state of origin. In the event of a winning
ticket, the Maryland customer would be informed and travel to the state of
issue to claim the ticket and prize. This network would encompass 23
state lotteries.

  One can readily imagine variations of this particular enterprise - for

example, transport of the purchased tickets to a central location, either
within or outside of Maryland, or the elimination of the conduit computer
in New Jersey. However, it is our opinion that the scheme you described,
or these variations of it, would violate Maryland law.

                                     II

                                 Analysis

  The General Assembly has long sought to combat lotteries. The core

prohibition, first enacted in 1828, is Article 27, §356 of the Maryland
Code:

            No person shall draw any lottery or sell any lottery
        ticket in this State; nor shall any person sell what are
        called policies, certificates or anything by which the
        vendor or other person promises or guarantees that
        any particular number, character, ticket or certificate
        shall in any event or on the happening of contingency
        entitle the purchaser or holder to receive money,
        property or evidence of debt.

Various provisions in the Lotteries subtitle of Article 27 reinforce this
prohibition. For example, §360 forbids anyone from "keep[ing] any
house, office or other place for the purpose of selling ... any lottery ticket
...." See also §§362 (prohibiting possession of lottery tickets) and 363
(prohibiting publication of "an account of any lottery"). Moreover, §357
broadly outlaws "[a]ll devices and contrivances designed to evade the
provisions of §356 of this article ...." Finally, §358 states the following
interpretive principle:

             The courts shall construe the foregoing provisions
        [§§356 through 367] relating to lotteries liberally, and
        shall adjudge all tickets, parts of tickets, certificates, or
        any other device, whatsoever, by which money or any
        other thing is to be paid or delivered or the happening
        of any event or contingency, in the nature of a lottery,
        to be lottery tickets.1

  The scope of legal lottery activities in Maryland is narrow. In 1972,

the voters ratified Article III, §36 of the Maryland Constitution, which
authorized the General Assembly to issue a "lottery grant" for "a lottery to
be operated by and for the benefit of the State" only.2

   During the session of the General Assembly following the ratification

of Article III, §36, two specific exceptions were added to Maryland's
criminal lottery statutes. Chapter 584 of the Laws of Maryland 1973
amended Article 27, §363 to permit the publication of the results of
governmental lotteries in Maryland. This office had opined a year earlier
that the publishing in Maryland of an account of an out-of-state lottery
would be a violation of §363. See 57 Opinions of the Attorney General
346 (1972). Chapter 774 of the Laws of Maryland 1973 amended Article
27, §362 to permit the possession by persons in Maryland of out-of-state
lottery tickets if issued by a government. The amendment also permitted
the possession of lottery tickets issued by the State of Maryland. In 57
Opinions of the Attorney General 346 (1972) and 49 Opinions of the
Attorney General 300 (1964), this office had advised that it was unlawful
to possess out-of-state lottery tickets in Maryland.

   These narrow exceptions are the only statutory changes that have

altered in any way Maryland law relating to lotteries. All other lottery-
related activity remains illegal, including that described in your letter.

   Article 27, §356 itself would render unlawful the transaction in

which the computer entry operator would receive money for the purchase
of the out-of-state lottery ticket. Although the actual lottery ticket would
not be conveyed to the purchaser at the time of order, §356 prohibits the
sale of a lottery ticket, certificate, "or anything" that promises or
guarantees to the holder that upon the happening of a contingency (the
out-of-state lottery drawing) the holder will receive money or property.

   Applying the liberal construction requirements of §368, the Court of

Special Appeals held in Silbert v. State, 12 Md. App. 516, 280 A.2d 55
(1971), that a "lottery ticket" may be "anything, tangible or intangible, by
which the sale of a chance or share in a lottery is manifested," including "a
mere exchange of words between the lottery operator and the bettor by
which they agree upon the terms under which a chance or share in the
lottery is being acquired." 12 Md. App. at 535. In our opinion, a
customer's receipt from a computer operator of a piece of paper, a print-
out, or merely a spoken promise concerning the customer's "stake" in an
out-of-state lottery would be illegal under §356.

   Moreover, the computer terminal device in Maryland that would

receive orders and presumably issue receipts would violate Article 27,
§357, which outlaws "any device[s] [or] contrivance[s]" designed to evade
the provisions of §356.3 In State v. Fiola, 242 N.J. Super. 240, 576 A.2d
338 (App. Div. 1990), the New Jersey Attorney General obtained an
injunction to prevent the conduct of a business in which an intermediary
would arrange for the purchase of out-of-state lottery tickets. The court
held that, in light of New Jersey's "strict approach to the construction" of
laws authorizing gambling under state auspices only, the defendants'
"unregulated activities involving lotteries operated by other states" violated
the New Jersey constitutional prohibition against gambling. 576 A.2d at

340. The court also concluded that the defendants' enterprise violated a
     criminal statute much like §357. 576 A.2d at 340-41.4

                                     III
     
                                Conclusion
     

     In summary, it is our opinion that the maintenance of a computer
     entry order device in Maryland to permit the electronic purchase of out-of-
     state lottery tickets is unlawful.

                                          J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                          Attorney General
     
                                          Michael G. Comeau
                                          Assistant Attorney General
     

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions & Advice

1
This direction that the anti-lottery provisions of Maryland law be
liberally construed mirrors similar language found in Maryland's anti-gaming
statute. See Article 27, §246. See generally Gaither v. Cate, 156 Md. 254, 144
A. 239 (1929); Allen v. State, 18 Md. App. 459, 307 A.2d 493 (1973).

2
The statutory provisions authorizing the Maryland State Lottery Agency
are set out in Title 9, Subtitle 1 of the State Government Article.

3
The maintenance of a house, office, or other place for the purpose of
conducting a computer entry operation such as that described in your inquiry would
also violate §360.

4
The New Jersey statute prohibits acts that "materially ai[d] [a] form of
gambling activity." See 576 A.2d at 340-41. We recognize that the business in
question in Fiola, unlike the one about which you ask, involved the actual delivery
of out-of-state lottery tickets to New Jersey customers. The court, however, took
account of the effect of the scheme as a whole in reaching its conclusion, and we
believe that its reasoning is applicable even if one fact is different.