Published on: August 27, 2025, 09:54h.
Updated on: August 27, 2025, 09:54h.
- DraftKings claims rules nullified $14.2M winnings from Pebble Beach
- Bettor Nicholas Bavas alleges breach of contract and fraud
- Case challenges sportsbooks’ reliance on terms to circumvent payouts
DraftKings contends that stipulations within its terms and conditions eliminate any duty to pay out $14.2 million to a bettor who accurately identified the top 20 finishers of the 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament.
Nicholas Bavas, hailing from Dallas County, Iowa, anticipated that inclement weather would likely cancel the final round of the tournament. He then placed five parlay bets with the online sportsbook, totaling a stake of $325. His selections mirrored the player standings at that moment, including leader Wyndham Clark as the victor.
Since his weather prediction was accurate, he successfully completed all five parlays, resulting in a projected payout of $14.2 million.
Accusations of Consumer Fraud
However, DraftKings denied the payout, arguing that its “Tournament Futures Winner” guideline permits the cancellation of the wagers once the Pebble Beach Pro-Am was abbreviated due to weather. They voided the bets and refunded Bavas’ stake.
Bavas has since filed a lawsuit against DraftKings for breach of contract and consumer fraud.
In a comprehensive 52-page submission to the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, DraftKings’ legal team presented extensive defenses, asserting 19 distinct affirmative defenses in this case.
These included an assertion that Bavas “knowingly accepted the risks involved with the odds tied to any wager.”
“Plaintiff is barred…as Plaintiff agreed to contract terms that release Defendants from liability,” the attorneys noted in the court document. “By creating a DraftKings Sportsbook account, Plaintiff accepted the Terms of Use and the relevant Rules…Defendants are hence absolved from any responsibility.”
Claim of Bad Faith
DraftKings also accused Bavas of acting in bad faith, alleging that he has “either willfully misinterpreted the relevant Terms…or is improperly leveraging supposed technical adherence to contract language to pursue this case… seeking to inappropriately claim millions and deny Defendants their contractual rights.”
Bavas argues that DraftKings misinterpreted its own regulations, insisting that at the least, only the “winner” aspect of his parlays should have been voided, while the rest ought to have been recalibrated and paid out. He is pursuing the $14.2 million in damages, along with potential treble damages under Iowa’s consumer protection laws.
The case is still ongoing, with no trial date scheduled as of yet.