How A Rain-Affected PGA Tour Event Has Led To One Bettor Attempting To Sue DraftKings For $14.2 Million

A man is suing DraftKings and its subsidiary Crown IA Gaming, alleging he is owed $14.2m after placing a series of bets on the 2024 Pebble Beach Pro-Am.

The PGA Tour Signature Event was badly affected by the weather, with Wyndham Clark, who led after the third round, declared the winner when officials ended the tournament after 54 holes due to unplayable weather conditions on Sunday.

Per Golfweek, the previous evening, Nicholas Bavas of Iowa placed five bets on the tournament with DraftKings, which was still accepting wagers, including parlays that relied on current leaderboard positions, despite the possibility of the final round not taking place.

According to the lawsuit, Bavas placed five bets between around 10pm on the Saturday evening and 12.01am on Sunday. They were parlay bets that relied on players maintaining their leaderboard positions as things stood.

For example, four of the bets, totaling $300, were for an identical "20 Picks" parlay where Bavas selected Clark as the winner and every other player in the bet to finish the tournament where they placed on the leaderboard at that time. A parlay bet needs all selected outcomes to be correct to receive a payout. Combined, they would have returned over $13.9m. Another bet for $25 was placed on a second parlay predicting the top 20 placings in no order, which would have returned $250,068.

On Sunday, heavy storms battered the Monterey Peninsula throughout the day, and with poor weather and strong winds forecast to continue into the early hours of Monday, the PGA Tour canceled the final round at 6pm local time out of an "abundance of caution" for spectators and players.

A statement from the PGA Tour at the time confirmed that “in accordance with the PGA Tour Regulations the tournament results will be final through the conclusion of 54 holes.”

Because Bavas bet on the current state of the leaderboard, his lawsuit alleges that all five bets had won, meaning he was due a payout of $14.2m.

However, the lawsuit also alleges that DraftKings “unilaterally voided” all five of his bets and refunded him instead, citing rules on “future bets,” which state they are canceled if they are placed after the last shot of what is later deemed to be the final round of the tournament.

Bavas’ lawyer Ben Lynch disputes whether that applies to bets on multiple players, which each of Bavas’ bets involved. He said: “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. 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."

The lawsuit also alleges that DraftKings has a “dizzying array of interlocking sets of rules that may or may not govern each bet depending on the type of wager placed, the specific event, and the particular sport. However, when DraftKings makes an error or accepts a bet it should not have, or when unforeseen events occur that require an unanticipated large payout by DraftKings, then it seems different rules apply.”

The lawsuit, which is seeking damages for breach of contract and violations of consumer-protection laws, has been transferred to the US District Court in Iowa, while Golfweek reports that neither DraftKings nor Crown IA Gaming have yet filed a response to the lawsuit.

Golf Monthly has contacted DraftKings but has yet to receive a response.