DraftKings faces $14.2M suit over voided wagers after weather-shortened PGA tournament upends payouts

A bettor from Iowa is suing DraftKings for $14.2 million after the sportsbook voided five parlay wagers he claims should have paid out following the weather-shortened 2024 AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am golf tournament.

Nicholas Bavas, a resident of Dallas County, placed five separate parlay bets on February 3, 2024, predicting the top finishers based on the leaderboard at the end of the third round.

With heavy rain forecast to disrupt Sunday’s final round, Bavas anticipated that the tournament would conclude after 54 holes and crafted his bets accordingly. Tournament leader Wyndham Clark was among his picks.

As predicted, PGA Tour officials postponed the final round multiple times on February 4 before canceling it altogether at 9:15 p.m., citing unplayable conditions. The third-round standings were declared official, confirming Clark as the winner and validating Bavas’ bets, at least in theory.

According to the lawsuit, the five parlays, which ranged in stakes from $25 to $100, were placed between 10 p.m. on February 3 and just after midnight on February 4. Collectively, the bets were set to return over $14.2 million. 

Instead, DraftKings voided all five, refunded the stakes, and cited its terms and conditions, which state that any “futures bets” placed after the last shot of a tournament, if that round is ultimately deemed the final, are considered void.

Bavas disputes this interpretation. His lawsuit argues that because the bets involved multiple player outcomes, not a single tournament winner, they should not fall under the "futures bet" definition. Even if part of a wager was voidable, the remaining elements should still be honored at recalculated odds, the suit contends.

DraftKings “unilaterally voided all five bets and gave him back his money,” the complaint reads, alleging that the company inconsistently applies its rules and does so retroactively to avoid large payouts. It also accuses the sportsbook and its subsidiary, Crown IA Gaming, of breach of contract and violations of consumer protection laws.

Bavas’ attorney, Ben Lynch, said the betting company changed its terms only after the tournament. “If he had lost the bet and said, ‘I want my money back because I didn’t think the weather was going to cancel things,’ DraftKings would have kept his money,” Lynch said. “The rules that DraftKings had in place at the time of the tournament did not allow them to void the bets. They changed the rules after this tournament.”

Bavas, who reportedly studied weather forecasts before placing his wagers, was not alone in betting on a shortened tournament. Other bettors who made similar predictions after play ended on February 3 also saw their bets voided and shared their frustrations on social media, according to Golf.com.