Draft Kings lawsuit - they voided bets that paid out big

[mstateglfr]

Sportsbook that voided Iowa man’s $14.2 million payout says it acted properly

The lawsuit seeks damages for breach of contract and violations of consumer-protection laws.

www.kcci.com

Long article,but it does a good job of explaining the situation.
A guy won multiple bets on a golf tournament because he entered them after the 3rd round ended and the 4th round was cancelled.

I don't think they would have refunded my money had I bet wrong in that same scenario...so Draft Kings' justification is a bit tenuous.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Sportsbook that voided Iowa man’s $14.2 million payout says it acted properly

The lawsuit seeks damages for breach of contract and violations of consumer-protection laws.

www.kcci.com

Long article,but it does a good job of explaining the situation.
A guy won multiple bets on a golf tournament because he entered them after the 3rd round ended and the 4th round was cancelled.

I don't think they would have refunded my money had I bet wrong in that same scenario...so Draft Kings' justification is a bit tenuous.

I’m going to use you as Cliffs Notes. Did they say there was some rule about that written down somewhere?

 

[stateu1]

I’m going to use you as Cliffs Notes. Did they say there was some rule about that written down somewhere?

It says they have a written rule saying they can void bets in the event of an error I don’t think the guy wins the suit.

 

[paindonthurt]

I don't think they would have refunded my money had I bet wrong in that same scenario...so Draft Kings' justification is a bit tenuous.

I bet they would have. My bet has been returned multiple times through various sites if a match/game wasn’t completed

 

[patdog]

Not reading the article. But you can’t place a bet after the event is finished. They rightly voided all bets after 3rd round, win or lose. This is a frivolous lawsuit and the attorney should be sanctioned

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I tend to side with the gambling site on this one. It's out of their control if a round of a tournament or a race gets cancelled. Any bets made after the previous round had ended should be voided.
I do have problems with casinos and gambling sites that somehow have say over what they pay in other situations. We have seen where a slot machine shows jackpot and the casino refuses to pay saying the machine made a mistake. I also don't understand how casinos can throw out "card counters" as long as they are doing it totally in their head and not using any devices. That's kinda like throwing Tiger or Scotty off the your because they are too talented.

 

[dorndawg]

I tend to side with the gambling site on this one. It's out of their control if a round of a tournament or a race gets cancelled. Any bets made after the previous round had ended should be voided.
I do have problems with casinos and gambling sites that somehow have say over what they pay in other situations. We have seen where a slot machine shows jackpot and the casino refuses to pay saying the machine made a mistake. I also don't understand how casinos can throw out "card counters" as long as they are doing it totally in their head and not using any devices. That's kinda like throwing Tiger or Scotty off the your because they are too talented.

It's *almost* like some of those games are rigged...

 

[Colonel Kang]

I tend to side with the gambling site on this one. It's out of their control if a round of a tournament or a race gets cancelled. Any bets made after the previous round had ended should be voided.
I do have problems with casinos and gambling sites that somehow have say over what they pay in other situations. We have seen where a slot machine shows jackpot and the casino refuses to pay saying the machine made a mistake. I also don't understand how casinos can throw out "card counters" as long as they are doing it totally in their head and not using any devices. That's kinda like throwing Tiger or Scotty off the your because they are too talented.

My guess is that the bettor knew what they were doing when they placed the bet after the 3rd round. Probably a weather guy or someone that had a pretty good guess that the 4th round would be canceled.

 

[GloryDawg]

Companies get suit all the time. Most big companies keep layers on retainers. Nothing to see here. Some lawyer is hoping for a fast settlement to make it go away.

 

[HotMop]

Companies get suit all the time. Most big companies keep layers on retainers. Nothing to see here. Some lawyer is hoping for a fast settlement to make it go away.

Suit layers?

 

[mstateglfr]

My guess is that the bettor knew what they were doing when they placed the bet after the 3rd round. Probably a weather guy or someone that had a pretty good guess that the 4th round would be canceled.

The article says heavy weather was predicted and well known...so yes.

 

[mstateglfr]

Not reading the article. But you can’t place a bet after the event is finished. They rightly voided all bets after 3rd round, win or lose. This is a frivolous lawsuit and the attorney should be sanctioned

Your should read the article.
The suit claims DK changed a rule after the bet. Not sure if thats accurate or not, but the claim isn't as simple as what you guessed.

 

[GloryDawg]

Suit layers?

You don't have to be able to spell or use keyboard to be a Marine.

 

[Bulldog45]

The article says heavy weather was predicted and well known...so yes.

Sounds like he bet on the weather and won then. Why didn’t the gambling entity heed the weather warning and shut down bets?

 

[patdog]

Your should read the article.
The suit claims DK changed a rule after the bet. Not sure if thats accurate or not, but the claim isn't as simple as what you guessed.

No way that’s accurate. If this lawsuit is legitimate, people at draft kings aren’t just losing a lawsuit, they’re going to jail. It’s not legitimate. Do you really think DraftKings had never considered the possibility that a young could get rained out & have a rule for it?

 

[paindonthurt]

Not reading the article. But you can’t place a bet after the event is finished. They rightly voided all bets after 3rd round, win or lose. This is a frivolous lawsuit and the attorney should be sanctioned

Here's where we need tort reform.

 

[paindonthurt]

I tend to side with the gambling site on this one. It's out of their control if a round of a tournament or a race gets cancelled. Any bets made after the previous round had ended should be voided.
I do have problems with casinos and gambling sites that somehow have say over what they pay in other situations. We have seen where a slot machine shows jackpot and the casino refuses to pay saying the machine made a mistake. I also don't understand how casinos can throw out "card counters" as long as they are doing it totally in their head and not using any devices. That's kinda like throwing Tiger or Scotty off the your because they are too talented.

I get what you are saying about card counting but businesses can throw anyone out for any reason as long as it doesn't break laws like discrimination based on color, ethnicity, etc.

 

[mstateglfr]

No way that’s accurate. If this lawsuit is legitimate, people at draft kings aren’t just losing a lawsuit, they’re going to jail. It’s not legitimate. Do you really think DraftKings had never considered the possibility that a young could get rained out & have a rule for it?

I don’t bet and therefore have never read all of the DK rules. I do not know what was in there and I do not know what is in there.

If I were a betting man, I would bet on DK winning the suit.
I posted the story here because a lot of SPS people do bet, and thought it might be interesting for some to read.

 

[patdog]

I don’t bet

You are a smart man then. And yeah, it is interesting, but I can't imagine the plaintiff could win.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I tend to side with the gambling site on this one. It's out of their control if a round of a tournament or a race gets cancelled. Any bets made after the previous round had ended should be voided.
I do have problems with casinos and gambling sites that somehow have say over what they pay in other situations. We have seen where a slot machine shows jackpot and the casino refuses to pay saying the machine made a mistake. I also don't understand how casinos can throw out "card counters" as long as they are doing it totally in their head and not using any devices. That's kinda like throwing Tiger or Scotty off the your because they are too talented.

I tend to side with the gambling site on this one. It's out of their control if a round of a tournament or a race gets cancelled. Any bets made after the previous round had ended should be voided.
I do have problems with casinos and gambling sites that somehow have say over what they pay in other situations. We have seen where a slot machine shows jackpot and the casino refuses to pay saying the machine made a mistake. I also don't understand how casinos can throw out "card counters" as long as they are doing it totally in their head and not using any devices. That's kinda like throwing Tiger or Scotty off the your because they are too talented.

My ex wife once got frustrated at a blackjack table and went "all in" betting almost $2,000 on a hand. She got blackjack, collected her winnings, and went to play slots and wait on her friends.

Security came to get her. Turned out the table she was at had a $1,000 limit, and the dealer should not have allowed her to bet the extra $900 or so. They wanted her to return about $1350 of her winnings, or else leave the casino and be banned from Harrah's everywhere.

She took the banishment, which was good for her, but then I was tasked with trying to appeal it. It wasnt going to end well.

As for card counters, as long as they arent coordinating with other people, then they aren't doing anything wrong...but the casinos can refuse service to anyone they want. They dont have to allow a card counter to just take their money. Most other games, it doesnt matter how good you are, if you keep playing you will lose.

 

[patdog]

My ex wife once got frustrated at a blackjack table and went "all in" betting almost $2,000 on a hand. She got blackjack, collected her winnings, and went to play slots and wait on her friends.

Security came to get her. Turned out the table she was at had a $1,000 limit, and the dealer should not have allowed her to bet the extra $900 or so. They wanted her to return about $1350 of her winnings, or else leave the casino and be banned from Harrah's everywhere.

She took the banishment, which was good for her, but then I was tasked with trying to appeal it. It wasnt going to end well.

As for card counters, as long as they arent coordinating with other people, then they aren't doing anything wrong...but the casinos can refuse service to anyone they want. They dont have to allow a card counter to just take their money. Most other games, it doesnt matter how good you are, if you keep playing you will lose.

Seems to me the casino had a problem with their dealer, not your ex-wife. She did the right thing.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Not reading the article. But you can’t place a bet after the event is finished. They rightly voided all bets after 3rd round, win or lose. This is a frivolous lawsuit and the attorney should be sanctioned

The event wasn’t finished though. Bets were placed before the final round was cancelled. The whole thing is a very slippery slope. Next thing you know, they won’t update a point spread fast enough after rumors get out about a starting QB tearing his ACL in practice, smart money jumps on it, then they try to void those bets and cite “errors” as the reasoning.

It’s not an error when you don’t update your odds in real time, or stop taking bets when there is an obvious risk of cancellation. The guy is obviously not going to get his $14 million but there will be a decent settlement perhaps that is way above and beyond his attorney’s fees….and DraftKings is going to be forced to change a lot of the language of their disclosures and policies with voided bets.

 

[patdog]

The event wasn’t finished though. Bets were placed before the final round was cancelled. The whole thing is a very slippery slope. Next thing you know, they won’t update a point spread fast enough after rumors get out about a starting QB tearing his ACL in practice, smart money jumps on it, then they try to void those bets and cite “errors” as the reasoning.

It’s not an error when you don’t update your odds in real time, or stop taking bets when there is an obvious risk of cancellation. The guy is obviously not going to get his $14 million but there will be a decent settlement perhaps that is way above and beyond his attorney’s fees….and DraftKings is going to be forced to change a lot of the language of their disclosures and policies with voided bets.

I'm not seeing the connection between not updating point spreads and the last round of an event being cancelled. There's no way they could cancel bets because they decide after the fact they don't like the point spread. They can suspend taking bets or they can update the point spread or just keep the old point spread.

 

[Perd Hapley]

My ex wife once got frustrated at a blackjack table and went "all in" betting almost $2,000 on a hand. She got blackjack, collected her winnings, and went to play slots and wait on her friends.

Security came to get her. Turned out the table she was at had a $1,000 limit, and the dealer should not have allowed her to bet the extra $900 or so. They wanted her to return about $1350 of her winnings, or else leave the casino and be banned from Harrah's everywhere.

She took the banishment, which was good for her, but then I was tasked with trying to appeal it. It wasnt going to end well.

As for card counters, as long as they arent coordinating with other people, then they aren't doing anything wrong...but the casinos can refuse service to anyone they want. They dont have to allow a card counter to just take their money. Most other games, it doesnt matter how good you are, if you keep playing you will lose.

That is insanity. But at least all the people that bet over $1000 and lost at the same table got a nice surprise and had security running them down to bring them huge stacks of chips. Warms my heart just thinking about it.

 

[Perd Hapley]

There's no way they could cancel bets because they decide after the fact they don't like the point spread.

Why not? That’s essentially what they did here. They decided after the fact that they didn’t like the posted odds that were given at the times the bets were placed, and accepted.

They can suspend taking bets or they can update the point spread or just keep the old point spread.

Exactly my point. They should have suspended the bets, updated the odds, etc. as soon as the risk of weather cancellation became known.

 

[GloryDawg]

My ex wife once got frustrated at a blackjack table and went "all in" betting almost $2,000 on a hand. She got blackjack, collected her winnings, and went to play slots and wait on her friends.

Security came to get her. Turned out the table she was at had a $1,000 limit, and the dealer should not have allowed her to bet the extra $900 or so. They wanted her to return about $1350 of her winnings, or else leave the casino and be banned from Harrah's everywhere.

She took the banishment, which was good for her, but then I was tasked with trying to appeal it. It wasnt going to end well.

As for card counters, as long as they arent coordinating with other people, then they aren't doing anything wrong...but the casinos can refuse service to anyone they want. They dont have to allow a card counter to just take their money. Most other games, it doesnt matter how good you are, if you keep playing you will lose.

 

[patdog]

Why not? That’s essentially what they did here. They decided after the fact that they didn’t like the posted odds that were given at the times the bets were placed, and accepted.



Exactly my point. They should have suspended the bets, updated the odds, etc. as soon as the risk of weather cancellation became known.

No it's not. The event was cancelled. You really think they should just suspend all bets because there's a "risk" the bets. This is no different than bets at the race track being voided if they're placed after the race starts.

 

[paindonthurt]

Why not? That’s essentially what they did here. They decided after the fact that they didn’t like the posted odds that were given at the times the bets were placed, and accepted.

Thats not even close to what they did.

 

[HotMop]

You don't have to be able to spell or use keyboard to be a Marine.

I mean, we are all slightly retarded for joining.

 

[HotMop]

I don’t bet and therefore have never read all of the DK rules. I do not know what was in there and I do not know what is in there.

If I were a betting man, I would bet on DK winning the suit.
I posted the story here because a lot of SPS people do bet, and thought it might be interesting for some to read.

Wanna bet?

 

[mstateglfr]

No it's not. The event was cancelled. You really think they should just suspend all bets because there's a "risk" the bets. This is no different than bets at the race track being voided if they're placed after the race starts.

The event wasn’t cancelled. It was shortened due to weather, but it was completed.
just clarifying

 

[dorndawg]

Wanna bet?

 

[Perd Hapley]

The event wasn’t cancelled. It was shortened due to weather, but it was completed.
just clarifying

Exactly. That’s an important distinction. Its not like a baseball game that had a thunderstorm in the 3rd inning that made it a total rain out. There was an actual outcome that was totally unknown at the time that he was betting on, and those bets were accepted.

 

[Perd Hapley]

No it's not. The event was cancelled. You really think they should just suspend all bets because there's a "risk" the bets.

Yes, that’s one thing I might expect. Or, they should have a specific weather policy in their disclaimers that makes it clear that bets may be voided if weather prevents the full event from being played. Or, they could simply update the odds / payouts accordingly to account for the high possibility of weather cancellation so that lucrative parlays would not be nearly as lucrative, and would be guaranteed losses if the event was somehow played. Or, they could simply honor the bets they accepted.

DK chose none of those options. Instead, they are leaning on extremely vague language in their site agreement that calls it an “error”, which wasn’t really an error but was actually just laziness and lack of due diligence. That language essentially states “we’ll do whatever we want, and if we don’t think its fair then we aren’t going to pay you.” That’s specifically what is going to get tested in court….whether they are violating consumer protection laws by not providing full disclosure on their liabilities / responsibilities for payouts. If so, there’s grounds for a settlement, and that’s what the end game will be. If it costs them $50,000 to make this go away (plus updating their disclosures to something more candid), then its a no brainer for them. That’s what the plaintiff’s attorney is banking on.

This is no different than bets at the race track being voided if they're placed after the race starts.

Haha….It’s way different from that. It’s a lot more like a 4th quarter bet on a football game. Point spreads and money lines both change throughout the game, but you can certainly place all sorts of bets after the game starts. You just might not like the odds you get compared to what you had before it started.

 

[Wesson Bulldog]

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Seems to me the casino had a problem with their dealer, not your ex-wife. She did the right thing.

Tha casino acknowledged it was the dealer's fault. They weren't claiming she broke the law, and they weren't going to sue her or anything.

But, it was illegal for the casino to accept a bet over the table limit. Or, at least against regulations, and a violation of their casino license. Had she lost her bet, they would have been obligated to return everything she bet over $1000.

Their position was that they needed to void part of her bet to abide by regulations. If she wouldnt cooperate, then they would no longer let her in. She should have known the table limit.

I could have appealed to the Casino regulatory commission, entirely run by members of the tribe. Didn't sound very promising. I could have tried making a stink with the North Carolina gaming commission, but she got paid even though she made an improper bet, and the Gaming commission cant force them to let her in.

I did threaten to go to the Gaming Commission to expose that they broke regulations, but they weren't very concerned.

 

[johnson86-1]

It says they have a written rule saying they can void bets in the event of an error I don’t think the guy wins the suit.

The "error" in this case would be them not taking into account all circumstances when calculating odds.

That said, the rule that allows them to void bets placed after what turns out to be the final round of play seems straightforward. They are claiming the rule was added after the fact, which should be easy enough to prove or disprove. But this seems like something that would come up so often that I'd be shocked if that rule wasn't already in place.

 

[johnson86-1]

Exactly. That’s an important distinction. Its not like a baseball game that had a thunderstorm in the 3rd inning that made it a total rain out. There was an actual outcome that was totally unknown at the time that he was betting on, and those bets were accepted.

It's like a baseball game going into a rain delay in the 7th inning and a person loading up on a prop bet on the final score. To the extent they have bets they still accept after the start of the game, I suspect they have the same language that addresses bets made after what turns out to be the final play of the game. Just seems too common a situation for them not to have had to address it before. Same with the golf rainout. I know legal internet sports gambling is somewhat new, but I find it hard to believe they haven't had to address this before. Just too many people looking for an edge to not have come across something reasonably obvious like this.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

The first rule of reading about legal matters in the media is that the journalist is bound to get something wrong. So, never try to guess the outcome of a case based solely on what you read about it in an article.

According to the article, though, the plaintiff placed a series of parlay bets believing the final round might be cancelled. For some reason, the attorney believes the parlay bets had to be accepted, while a bet placed just on Whyndam Clark to win the event could have been voided.

Im making no guess as to the outcome of the case, but I wouldnt call it frivolous without more information.

However, I will be surprised if the plaintiff walks away with $14 MM. A confidential settlement seems more likely.

 

[Perd Hapley]

It's like a baseball game going into a rain delay in the 7th inning and a person loading up on a prop bet on the final score. To the extent they have bets they still accept after the start of the game, I suspect they have the same language that addresses bets made after what turns out to be the final play of the game. Just seems too common a situation for them not to have had to address it before. Same with the golf rainout. I know legal internet sports gambling is somewhat new, but I find it hard to believe they haven't had to address this before. Just too many people looking for an edge to not have come across something reasonably obvious like this.

Agreed 100%. But if everything was above board there, this wouldn’t be in the news because the dude would have no case. I was shocked how simple the language about “errors” was in their site rules. It wouldn’t be hard at all to add like just 10 words to clarify that weather cancellations may result in voided bets.

Of course, if lawyers were actually involved in writing all these contracts and disclaimers, there would be a lot fewer lawsuits. The fact that they aren’t always vetted so well is why that’s not the case.