DraftKings Says Fine Print Shields It from $14.2 Million Golf Bet Payout
Posted on: August 27, 2025, 09:54h.
Last updated on: August 27, 2025, 10:18h.
- DraftKings argues its rules voided a payout on $14.2M in Pebble Beach winnings
- Bettor Nicholas Bavas claims breach of contract, fraud
- Case tests sportsbooks’ reliance on terms to avoid payouts
DraftKings argues that stipulations in its terms and conditions absolve it of any obligation to pay out $14.2 million to a bettor who correctly predicted the top-20 finishers in the 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament.
Nicholas Bavas, a resident of Dallas County, Iowa, realized that bad weather would likely lead to the tournament’s final round being canceled. So he placed five parlays with the online sportsbook for a combined stake of $325. His picks reflected the player standings in the event at the time, and included leader Wyndham Clark as the eventual winner.
Since his assumption about the weather proved to be correct, he nailed all five parlays for an expected $14.2 million payday.
‘Consumer Fraud’
DraftKings refused to pay because it argued its “Tournament Futures Winner” rule allowed the wagers to be voided once the Pebble Beach Pro-Am was shortened by weather. The sportsbook voided the bets and returned Bavas’ stake.
Bavas sued, accusing DraftKings of breach of contract and consumer fraud.
In a recent 52-page filing to the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, DraftKings’ lawyers threw the kitchen sink at the plaintiff, asserting 19 separate affirmative defenses in the case.
These included the claim that Bavas “knowingly accepted the risk that circumstances may arise related to the odds associated with any wager.”
“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.”
Bad Faith Claim
DraftKings also accuses the plaintiff of acting in bad faith, adding that he has “either intentionally misconstrued the applicable Terms … or is improperly using purported technical compliance with contract language to bring this action … attempting to improperly collect millions of dollars and deprive Defendants of contractual benefits.”
Bavas maintains that DraftKings misapplied its rules and that, at the very least, only the “winner” portion of his parlays should have been voided, with the rest recalculated and paid. He is seeking the $14.2 million in damages, plus potential treble damages under Iowa’s consumer protection law.
The case is pending with no trial date yet set.
No comments yet