At first, I was thoroughly p!ssed about this when I watched it. But then again, I got to thinking. If you watch the story to the end, you find that at that point in time, there was no law in place to have applied to this situation. While I have a problem with her crass attitude that she is somehow "entitled" to the $200 a month, she was not in fact breaking any laws. She played a legitimate lottery and won a winfall prize that she paid taxes on.
Here's the part that actually kinda pisses me off even more than her entitlement attitude:
The "investigative journalist" KNEW that she wasn't doing anything illegal, yet followed her with a hidden camera and then put her on the spot in an ambush interview. I know I wouldn't want a hidden camera following me and then airing what I'm doing (or not doing) around even if I know I am not doing anything legally wrong. That's just poor journalism. If you figure out over the course of your investigation that the subject is in fact innocent of any LEGAL wrong-doing even though her motive may be morally questionable, you DON'T RUN THE PIECE. Since when are news reporters the "moral high water mark"?