the tickets were just one component of that entire program. Here, in contrast, the TEA just as clearly does not provide any portion of driver education; it merely licenses driver education schools. Second, in the lottery cases, the lottery commissions contracted with the lottery providers, which were paid commissions for acting as agents for the state. Winborne, 677 S.E.2d at 307; Paxton, 451 S.E.2d at 785. Here, there is no such agency or contractual relationship. These cases are therefore unpersuasive. The only other cases that have held a public entity liable for a private actor’s inaccessibility involved similar situations where the private actors had a contractual or agency relationship with the public entity. See, e.g., Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Indep. Hous. Servs. of S.F. v. Fillmore Ctr.
holding that state could be liable under ada for inaccessibility of company it contracted with to provide state inmates with jobs holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability recognizing that under california state law only ceremonial marriages can be contracted holding that a physician under contract with north carolina to provide medical services to prison inmates was a state actor for purposes of  1983 holding that the plain text of title ii of the ada unambiguously extends to state prison inmates