He knowingly allowed her to enter and win, knowing she couldn't claim it
When a South Australian woman won a $3.5 million home through a lottery she was legally barred from entering, the ensuing public outcry drew sharp ministerial words — and those words have now become the subject of a defamation suit in the Supreme Court. Adrian Portelli, the Melbourne entrepreneur behind the LMCT+ rewards club, argues that former minister Andrea Michaels crossed a line when she publicly accused him of knowingly defrauding South Australians, triggering death threats and a wave of public condemnation. The case asks an enduring question: where does a public official's duty to speak end and a private citizen's right to reputation begin?
- A South Australian woman won a $3.5 million house only to discover she was legally ineligible to claim it under the state's strict gaming laws — leaving her with a $100,000 consolation offer instead.
- Former minister Andrea Michaels told the press that Portelli had knowingly taken money from South Australians without a licence, framing the situation as deliberate fraud rather than regulatory complexity.
- Portelli says those words unleashed a torrent of social media abuse and death threats, causing serious and measurable damage to his professional reputation and personal safety.
- The defamation trial now sits at the intersection of two unresolved tensions: LMCT+ was found guilty of running illegal lotteries and fined $40,000, yet Portelli himself was acquitted — complicating any simple narrative of wrongdoing.
- The case is being watched as a test of how freely public officials can comment on business compliance matters without crossing into legally actionable territory.
Adrian Portelli — the Melbourne businessman known for extravagant giveaways — arrived at the South Australian Supreme Court last Friday to pursue a defamation claim against former consumer affairs minister Andrea Michaels. The dispute has its roots in a $3.5 million house from the television renovation show The Block, offered as a prize through Portelli's LMCT+ rewards club.
A South Australian woman paid for a membership, entered the draw, and won — only to discover that South Australia's gaming laws, the strictest in the country, prohibit residents from claiming prizes even if they can legally purchase memberships. She had been ineligible from the outset, though nobody had told her. Portelli later offered her $100,000 in lieu of the house she had won.
When the story broke publicly, Michaels told Adelaide media that Portelli had knowingly taken money from South Australians while unlicensed to run a lottery in the state, and had allowed an ineligible person to enter and win knowing she could never collect. Portelli's legal team argues these statements painted him as a deliberate fraudster, and that the consequences were swift and severe — death threats, social media campaigns branding him a scammer, and lasting reputational damage.
The timing adds complexity. At the moment Michaels spoke, Portelli's company was already facing criminal charges over illegal lottery operations between 2023 and 2024. The company was ultimately found guilty and fined $40,000; Portelli himself was acquitted. He has maintained that his business employs a dedicated compliance team.
Beyond the courtroom drama, the case illuminates a broader tension in Australian consumer law. Rewards clubs like LMCT+ have expanded rapidly by exploiting looser gaming regulations in most states, while running into hard walls in South Australia. The outcome may define how much latitude public officials have to characterise business conduct — and how much protection entrepreneurs can claim when that characterisation turns the public against them.
Adrian Portelli, the Melbourne businessman known as "Lambo Guy" for his flashy giveaways, walked into the South Australian Supreme Court last Friday with a defamation lawsuit against former state minister Andrea Michaels. At stake: his reputation, which he says was shredded by her public comments about a lottery scandal that has become emblematic of a larger tension between loose gaming laws and strict regulation.
The dispute centers on a $3.5 million house from the television show The Block. Portelli's company, LMCT+, operates a rewards club that sells memberships offering discounts, events, and entries into prize draws. A South Australian woman paid to join, entered the lottery, and won the house. Then came the problem: South Australia has the country's strictest gaming laws. While residents can buy memberships and access discounts, they cannot legally win any prizes. The woman was ineligible from the start, though she didn't know it.
When the situation became public, Michaels, then minister for consumer and business affairs, spoke to the press. She called the outcome "awful" and "terrible." In statements to Adelaide Now and The Advertiser, she alleged that Portelli had "knowingly taken money from South Australians, knowing he wasn't licensed to operate a lottery" in the state. She suggested he had deliberately allowed an ineligible person to enter and win, knowing full well she couldn't claim the prize. The implication, Portelli's lawyers argue, was that he was a con man running a fraud.
Portelli's defamation claim rests on the argument that Michaels knew her words would be amplified and believed by the public, and that they caused demonstrable harm. His legal filing points to death threats he received and social media comments calling him a scammer and demanding audits of his entire fortune. His reputation and professional identity, the claim states, suffered serious damage. Portelli's lawyer, Omar Juweinat, declined to discuss specifics, saying only that the court filings "speak for themselves."
The timing of the lawsuit is notable. At the moment Michaels made her comments, Portelli and his company were already in court. They faced charges of running illegal lotteries between January 2023 and May 2024. Earlier this year, the company was found guilty and fined $40,000. Portelli himself was acquitted. He has previously told the ABC that his company maintains an entire team to ensure compliance with gaming law.
Meanwhile, the South Australian woman who won the house but couldn't claim it received a personal offer from Portelli: $100,000 instead of the $3.5 million prize. It was a settlement of sorts, though it left her with far less than she had won.
The case touches on a broader phenomenon. Rewards clubs have proliferated across Australia in recent years, exploiting looser community gaming laws in most states. LMCT+ has grown from a simple giveaway club into something more ambitious: it now operates a petrol station selling fuel at cost to members and plans to open a supermarket. Portelli has also co-hosted a Channel Seven reality show called My Reno Rules, which promoted the membership and described itself as "the biggest viewer giveaway in Australian television history."
Michaels was unreachable for comment. The court case continues, testing the boundaries of what a public official can say about a business's regulatory compliance without facing legal consequences.
Notable Quotes
He has created an awful situation for the South Australian woman at the centre of this by allowing her to enter and then win this lottery, while knowing South Australians weren't eligible because he didn't have a licence to operate in our state.— Former SA minister Andrea Michaels, in The Advertiser
The material filed in the proceedings speak for themselves and my client looks forward to the matter being determined according to law.— Omar Juweinat, Portelli's lawyer
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Portelli wait until now to sue? The lottery incident happened last year.
The timing tracks with when the company was convicted and when the reputational damage became most visible—the social media pile-on, the death threats. Those are the things that make a defamation case concrete rather than theoretical.
But Michaels was a government minister commenting on what appeared to be a genuine regulatory violation. Doesn't that give her some protection?
That's the legal question the court will have to answer. She was speaking in her official capacity about a real problem—an ineligible person did win. The question is whether she went beyond describing the facts and into implying fraud or dishonesty that she couldn't prove.
The woman got $100,000 instead of $3.5 million. Is that what Portelli's trying to protect—his image as a generous giver?
Partly. But it's also about the accusation itself. If a minister says you knowingly defrauded people, that sticks. The money he gave her afterward looks like damage control, not generosity.
Do rewards clubs actually operate legally in other states?
Yes, most states have looser community gaming laws. South Australia is the outlier with strict rules. So Portelli's business model works everywhere else—it's only SA where the conflict exists.
What happens if he wins?
It sets a precedent about what public officials can say about business practices without facing defamation suits. It could make ministers more cautious about calling out regulatory problems publicly.