A legal dispute in Scottsdale, Arizona, has drawn widespread attention after a Circle K store manager allegedly purchased a multimillion-dollar lottery ticket from his own workplace — but only after confirming that it was the winning one. The controversy centers on a $12.8 million jackpot from an Arizona Lottery drawing and raises complex questions about ownership, employee conduct, and the interpretation of administrative rules governing unsold lottery tickets.
What might initially appear to be a simple case of a purchased winning ticket has instead evolved into a high-stakes legal battle involving corporate interests, regulatory policy, and the limits of permissible behavior for retail employees with access to lottery products.
At the center of the dispute is Robert Gawlitza, the manager of a Circle K convenience store in Scottsdale. According to court filings, the winning ticket was not originally purchased in the ordinary course of business. Instead, it was part of a batch of lottery tickets printed for a customer who did not complete payment for all of them. Those leftover tickets remained at the store, and one later turned out to be worth millions.
The actions taken after that discovery — particularly the manager’s decision to purchase the remaining tickets himself — have become the foundation of a lawsuit filed by Circle K, which is asking a court to determine who legally owns the jackpot. The situation has drawn scrutiny not only because of the enormous prize involved but also because it exposes a gray area where corporate ownership, retail procedure, and lottery regulations intersect.
The Abandoned Tickets and the Winning Draw
The events that triggered the dispute began on November 24, 2025, when a customer visited a Circle K location in Scottsdale and requested that previously used lottery numbers be replayed for that evening’s drawing of The Pick, an Arizona Lottery game. The clerk printed multiple tickets totaling $85 in value. However, the customer paid for only $60 worth of those tickets before leaving the store, abandoning 25 of them on the counter.
At the time, the transaction appeared routine. Retailers occasionally generate more tickets than a customer ultimately purchases, and such situations rarely lead to significant consequences. That changed later that evening when one of the leftover tickets matched all six winning numbers in the drawing. The jackpot totaled $12.8 million, making it one of the largest prizes awarded in the game’s history and the biggest lottery win recorded in the state in several years.
What had been an ordinary instance of unpurchased tickets suddenly became the source of a massive financial windfall — and the beginning of a complicated ownership dispute. The following morning, store manager Robert Gawlitza reportedly arrived for his shift and learned that a winning ticket had been printed at his Circle K location. According to court documents, he located the unsold tickets and confirmed that one was the jackpot winner.
Read : Joshua Walter Cobb Arrested After Posing as ICE Agent, Assaulting McDonald’s Manager Daniel Martinez
He then took steps that would later become central to the legal challenge now underway. He clocked out from his shift, removed his store uniform, and had another employee ring up a purchase of the remaining tickets, including the winning one, for a total of $10. He signed the ticket, a standard step intended to establish personal ownership for the purpose of claiming a lottery prize.
Read : Over 1,000 Dead During Hajj in Mecca Amid Extreme Heatwave
Circle K management later learned of the situation and intervened. The company directed that the ticket be secured at corporate offices, where it remains while the legal process unfolds. Rather than immediately claiming ownership of the prize, Circle K filed a lawsuit asking a court to determine whether the ticket was validly sold, who legally owns it, and who has the right to claim the $12.8 million jackpot.
Legal Questions Over Ownership and Employee Conduct
The lawsuit filed by Circle K highlights several overlapping legal issues that make the case unusually complex. One of the central questions concerns the status of lottery tickets that are printed but not purchased. Under Arizona administrative rules, when a retailer prints a ticket that a customer refuses or abandons and the ticket is not resold, the ticket becomes the property of the retailer. Because retailers pay for every ticket they print — regardless of whether it is ultimately sold — unsold tickets are generally treated as belonging to the business that generated them.
This rule raises an immediate question in the Circle K case. If the abandoned tickets became the property of the store, then the company may argue that the winning ticket was already under its ownership before the manager attempted to purchase it. From that perspective, the transaction could be viewed not as an ordinary sale but as an employee acquiring property that belonged to his employer after discovering its value.
At the same time, Arizona Lottery regulations prohibit store employees from participating in lottery games while working. The purpose of that rule is to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain public trust in the fairness of lottery operations. According to court filings, Gawlitza clocked out and removed his uniform before purchasing the tickets, which may suggest an attempt to comply with the technical wording of the rule. However, the legal dispute may hinge not only on whether he was officially off duty but also on whether purchasing a ticket after confirming it is a winner violates the intent of the regulation, even if it appears to satisfy the literal requirement.
Another key issue involves whether the purchase itself constitutes a valid retail transaction. If the court determines that the store already owned the ticket and that an employee cannot legitimately buy it after learning it is valuable, then the sale may be considered invalid. On the other hand, if the purchase followed standard procedures and no rule explicitly prohibits such a transaction under those circumstances, the manager could argue that he lawfully acquired the ticket.
The case is further complicated by the absence of clear precedent. Lottery officials have reportedly indicated that they have not previously encountered litigation involving the same combination of factors — abandoned tickets, retailer ownership rules, employee purchase after confirmation of winnings, and corporate intervention before a claim is made. Without a direct historical comparison, the court’s interpretation of existing regulations may set an important precedent for future disputes.
Timing also plays a significant role. Lottery prizes must be claimed within a defined period following the drawing. In this case, the deadline to claim the winnings falls 180 days after the drawing date. If no valid claim is recognized before that deadline, portions of the prize are distributed according to lottery rules, with some funds directed to designated beneficiaries and the remainder returned to the prize pool. This time limit adds urgency to the legal proceedings and increases the stakes for all parties involved.
Past Lottery Insider Cases and Industry Implications
Although the Circle K dispute may be unusual in its specific details, it fits within a broader pattern of controversies involving lottery insiders, retail employees, or individuals with special access to lottery operations. Over the years, numerous cases have arisen in which store workers, managers, or other insiders attempted to claim prizes under circumstances that raised questions about fairness and compliance with regulations.
Read : Grandma’s Daycare Manager Alma Enriquez Garza Charged with Evidence Tampering
In some instances, retail employees purchased tickets only after confirming they were winners. Employers frequently responded by terminating those employees or disputing their claims, arguing that insider knowledge creates an unfair advantage and undermines the integrity of lottery systems. Investigations in certain cases have relied on transaction records, surveillance footage, and internal policy reviews to determine whether employees acted improperly.
Other incidents have involved more direct misconduct, including attempts to claim tickets that customers left behind or to conceal the origin of winning tickets. Authorities have often taken strict action in such situations, emphasizing the importance of protecting public confidence in games that rely on randomness and transparency.
More extreme examples have involved manipulation of lottery systems themselves. In one well-known case, a lottery security official used insider access to interfere with the random number generation process and influence drawing outcomes across multiple states. That investigation ultimately revealed deliberate efforts to rig results and conceal winnings, reinforcing the need for strict oversight and clearly defined participation rules for individuals connected to lottery operations.
Against that broader history, the Circle K dispute stands out because it does not involve allegations that a customer was cheated out of a winning ticket. The original customer paid for some tickets and left the rest behind. The question now is not whether the winning numbers were manipulated or whether a rightful purchaser was deprived of a prize, but whether knowledge and timing can transform an abandoned ticket into a legitimate personal purchase by someone with insider awareness.
The outcome of the case could influence how retailers handle unsold tickets, how employee participation rules are enforced, and how administrative ownership provisions are interpreted when a ticket’s value becomes known after printing but before resale. Lottery commissions, retail chains, and regulatory agencies across the country may closely watch the court’s decision, as it could shape future policy and clarify the boundaries between lawful purchase and improper advantage within the lottery system.