Man Sues DraftKings Inc., Claiming He Was Denied Winnings from Pro Golf Tournament

Oct 17, 2025

By Gil Fried, Professor, University of West Florida

When is a bet not a bet?  According to DraftKings it is when a bet is placed on an event where the event was not completed.  The issue has arisen after the company voided an Iowa man’s golf tournament wagers, denying him $14.2 million in purported winnings.  The company said It has the right to void any bet due to an error or some other event that can nullify the results. 

Nicholas Bavas is suing DraftKings Inc., and its subsidiary Crown IA Gaming, which is licensed by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission to conduct sports wagering within the state.  He claims DraftKings unfairly voided the bets he placed on the 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am as rain threatened to cut short tournament play after 54 holes.   Bavas thought there was a good chance the tournament’s final round would be canceled, and with DraftKings still accepting bets on the tournament’s outcome, Bavas wagered on the competitors who were then in the lead.

DraftKings asserted 19 separate affirmative defenses in the case, including a claim that bettors “knowingly accepted the risk that circumstances may arise related to the odds associated with any wager.”  Such a policy is, according to the company, disclosed in the “house rules” to which Bavas agreed, including rules that expressly warn that errors may occur and DraftKings has the right to void wagers due to any such errors.  Bavas’ attorneys argued the rules are confusing and not always enforced or enforced only when the company losses a large payout.   The case is expected to go to trial in September 2026.

According to the lawsuit, Bavas placed five bets on the outcome of the Pebble Beach Pro-Am in the late hours of Feb. 3 and all the bets were accepted by DraftKings.  The bets were for various parlays based on who was in the lead and the respective positions they stood at on February 3rd when play had ended for the day. 

On Feb. 4, 2024, PGA Tour officials continually delayed the scheduled start of the final round of tournament play due to rain and wind.  Later that evening, the PGA Tour’s rules committees announced there would be no play the following day and so the tournament results would be considered final through the conclusion of the 54 holes already played.  Based on the cancellation, the results from Feb. 3rd stood and by virtue of his bets, Bavas expected a total potential payout of $14.2 million.

Bavas alleges, DraftKings “unilaterally voided” all five of his bets and refunded the wagered amounts.  The company cited rules that say “futures bets” placed after the last shot of what is later determined to be the final round are voided.  Bavas claims that rule does not apply because that rule applies to individual player and not multiplayer parlay bets. 

Bavas’ suit seeks damages for breach of contract and violations of consumer-protection laws.  It should be noted that Bavas wasn’t the only person who bet that the weather would result in a rain-shortened pro-am. DraftKings retroactively voided all bets placed after the close of play on Feb. 3, 2024.

A FanDuel spokesperson told GOLF.com, “All bets placed after the completion of the 3rd round were voided, and all 72-hole match bets were voided because 72 holes were not completed.”

Similarly, BetMGM’s “Minimum Length of Play” policy in its rules states, “In the event of a tournament being shortened or otherwise affected due to weather conditions, all bets other than those placed after the last completed round will stand provided at least 36 holes have been played and a trophy has been awarded. Those placed after the last completed round will be cancelled.”

This case shows that there are people out there who will try to take advantage of a situation that might arise while an event is going on and may try to use new knowledge or information to help place a wager.  It should be noted that if there are loopholes, people will try to take advantage of those loopholes and then try to see what they can possibly get through litigation or a settlement.  These unique interpretations of a contract are one reason why contracts are regularly updated and getting more complex on a regular basis.

Articles in Current Issue