DraftKings Says Fine Print Shields It from $14.2 Million Golf Bet Payout

According to DraftKings, clauses in its terms and conditions release it from any need to compensate a bettor who accurately predicted the top 20 finishers in the 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament with $14.2 million.

Dallas County, Iowa resident Nicholas Bavas anticipated that inclement weather would probably force the cancellation of the tournament's last round.  He thus staked $325 total on five parlays with the internet sportsbook. His selections, which included eventual champion Wyndham Clark as the leader, mirrored the player positions in the competition at the time.

He hit all five parlays for an anticipated $14.2 million payout because his weather prediction came true.

"Consumer Fraud"

Because it claimed that its "Tournament Futures Winner" rule permitted the bets to be canceled after the Pebble Beach Pro-Am was cut short due to bad weather, DraftKings declined to pay.  Bavas' stake was returned after the bookmaker canceled the wagers.

Bavas filed a lawsuit against DraftKings, alleging consumer fraud and violation of contract.

The attorneys for DraftKings just filed a 52-page document in the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, arguing 19 different affirmative defenses against the plaintiff.

Bavas "knowingly accepted the risk that circumstances may arise related to the odds associated with any wager," according to one of these allegations.

“Plaintiff is barred … because Plaintiff agreed to contract provisions releasing Defendants from liability,” the lawyers wrote in the filing. “Plaintiff agreed to the Terms of Use and the applicable Rules upon creating his DraftKings Sportsbook account … Defendants are thus released from any liability.”

Claim of Bad Faith

The plaintiff has "either intentionally misconstrued the applicable Terms … or is improperly using purported technical compliance of contract language to bring this action … attempting to improperly collect millions of dollars and deprive Defendants of contractual benefits," according to DraftKings, which also charges him with acting in bad faith.

Bavas insists that just the "winner" part of his parlays should have been canceled, with the remaining amounts being recalculated and paid, because DraftKings misapplied its regulations.  Under Iowa's consumer protection legislation, he is requesting $14.2 million in damages, with the possibility of triple damages.

There is currently no trial date set for the case.