"Gambler sues DraftKings, claims online sportsbook screwed him out of $14m"

[shinratensei_]

I was curious if the case is still ongoing, but it looks like the guy lost the case. I was looking for more info and found a post on X saying that on July 9th, DraftKings was granted a summary judgment motion against Bavas.

Right now, Bavas's team is fighting to unseal the ruling so the public can see it, while DraftKings is fighting to redact more.

DraftKings is also demanding that Bavas pay their legal fees.

For anyone curious, here's the post on X.
https://x.com/GivnerAriel/status/2081029502138745175

DraftKings is asking Bavas to pay their legal fees.
https://x.com/GivnerAriel/status/2081163368761561131

Bavas has to stop it, otherwise, he's digging his own graveyard. His fault was obvious by placed a bet after the game already ended, yet he has not yet given up after judgement put him proven the guilty.
The boomerang for him is just getting bigger if he keeps being so harsh if DraftKing was cheating him. This guy has not even known his position. What's wrong with him!

[$crypto$]

Too complicated when it comes to dealing with bookies.

I have read the article --- The lawyer said that his client had legitimately won a large bet because DraftKings accepted the bet, but the claim from DraftKings was not expected by the man and said that only taking advantage of the exploitation gap, DraftKings only returned the bankroll that was bet on.

If DraftKings paid out $14m in winnings they had nothing to lose, the bookmaker's claim was different and it was better to go to court and it turns out this case was a long time ago until now?

The bookies will not lose from all aspects.

[bitbollo]

He has to pay for sure the lawyers...
I haven't seen exactly their ToS but in most of the time these bets would just be voided = even if there is a winner, the event doesn't fully complete. There are many different way to explain this passage.
Likewise in tennis if a player retire =
- some bookmakers would pay the bets as a win for the player that win
- some bookmakers would reimburse the bet in any case (if there is forfait by the losing player...)
For sure they have all in place to avoid any issue like this...

[len01]

From my understanding of the article, the bettors were simply trying to take advantage of the fact that DraftKings hadn't closed that betting market. At the same time, DraftKings was also at fault because if there was an issue with the event, they should have temporarily closed all betting markets. Instead, they kept every betting option open, which led bettors to believe they could take advantage of the situation. What made it even worse was that DraftKings implemented a new rule only after the incident, which reflected negatively on the site itself.

So, if the question is who was at fault, I'd say both sides share the blame. However, if the question is who would win in court, I'd put my money on DraftKings. 

[Tungbulu]

Why is all the blame given to DraftKings? Don't forget that the guy in question saw a loophole and actually wanted to take advantage of it and cheat the casino but was caught. DraftKings might have missed that weather forecast or delay from their end which prevented them from stopping to accept bets on their game, but that’s not enough for a player to use and try to reap them.

You’re right, but the truth is that DraftKing wasn’t just paying attention. If it were to me, seeing someone making the same exact bet repeatedly over 5 times should have raised some questions if they were actually paying attention, and maybe they would’ve looked into the case and maybe figured out the loophole before the end of the tournament and they would’ve definitely voided the bet and avoided the lawsuit.

They were also kind enough in this particular case to allow the player to get back all his deposit instead of seizing it, the case was actually won by Draftking which I consider fair enough.

Yeah it was only fair that the case would be ruled in favor of DraftKing, because that was technically cheating, and DraftKing giving back his initial deposits wasn’t even about being kind, it was actually the most logical and appropriate thing to do at that point, since the bet was concluded to have been void, players are meant to refund voided tickets right?

[o48o]

Good luck for the person trying to sue them, as this isn't going far . I am guessing that when there's enough money involved, one can always find a greedy lawyer pursuing the case. Because if the customer wins, they win big and if the customer loses, they still get paid. And obviously some unethical lawyer says that there's a change when there's a loophole.

What they don't say is that casinos can afford to hire legal teams who make more in a day, then some rogue lawyer makes in month. They are also specialized to make airtight terms of services, because casinos know someone could exploit them with unforeseen technical error.

[AmoreJaz]

Good luck for the person trying to sue them, as this isn't going far . I am guessing that when there's enough money involved, one can always find a greedy lawyer pursuing the case. Because if the customer wins, they win big and if the customer loses, they still get paid. And obviously some unethical lawyer says that there's a change when there's a loophole.

What they don't say is that casinos can afford to hire legal teams who make more in a day, then some rogue lawyer makes in month. They are also specialized to make airtight terms of services, because casinos know someone could exploit them with unforeseen technical error.

This will be quite a journey. I don't think the site will just give him what he wants. So yeah, it would be a long battle and see where will this go. Hard to chase after gambling sites as there are so many processes involved here. It is not just one step. So if he wants a headache so be it.

[o48o]

Good luck for the person trying to sue them, as this isn't going far . I am guessing that when there's enough money involved, one can always find a greedy lawyer pursuing the case. Because if the customer wins, they win big and if the customer loses, they still get paid. And obviously some unethical lawyer says that there's a change when there's a loophole.

What they don't say is that casinos can afford to hire legal teams who make more in a day, then some rogue lawyer makes in month. They are also specialized to make airtight terms of services, because casinos know someone could exploit them with unforeseen technical error.

This will be quite a journey. I don't think the site will just give him what he wants. So yeah, it would be a long battle and see where will this go. Hard to chase after gambling sites as there are so many processes involved here. It is not just one step. So if he wants a headache so be it.

I don't think it is a long one. It's going as far as technicalities allow that lawyer to milk their customer. Some judge will laugh them out the court early on, or then i am missing some key elements that aren't revealed in the article.

I am not an expert on this but this seems like an obvious case where you can clearly see the reasons on why it's gone this far. And that's because lawyer doesn't have their customer interests in mind, they just use technical loophole to wash their hands and pretend that they are being genuinely helpful.

[Pandu Geddon]

So, if the question is who was at fault, I'd say both sides share the blame. However, if the question is who would win in court, I'd put my money on DraftKings. 

I think the best solution for a case like that is to cancel the bet, and the amount wagered could be refunded to the bettor's account. Both options create a chance to not suffer a loss. I don't know who would win if it went to court, but it could take a lot of effort from the plaintiff.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Too complicated when it comes to dealing with bookies.

I have read the article --- The lawyer said that his client had legitimately won a large bet because DraftKings accepted the bet, but the claim from DraftKings was not expected by the man and said that only taking advantage of the exploitation gap, DraftKings only returned the bankroll that was bet on.

If DraftKings paid out $14m in winnings they had nothing to lose, the bookmaker's claim was different and it was better to go to court and it turns out this case was a long time ago until now?

The bookies will not lose from all aspects.

On what grounds have they refused to make the payout? If it was a lost bet, would they have called out the issue and addressed it as a void game, then make a refund anyway? No. What make the difference? Now they're making all their references to their terms and conditions.

[Hatchy]

The case with the link you shared has not yet been concluded, and we don’t know how it ends, but I believe the dude should be compensated and not just his wagered amount being returned, and many others whose bets were also void might also ask for their own compensation, as one bettor won’t be the only one who saw that loophole, as long as the bet is accepted and was open till a decision was made on that game, the bettor still has something to argue.

It's already a red flag for me, if they make such moves trying to forfeit the win of their players. Like to such extent of even bending their own rules just to make them look better is ridiculous. If they don't had some issues with such bets, it shouldn't have been made available and I think this is something I'm beginning to notice on many sport books. They give you some kind of odds, just to make sure you have something to bet on, but those odds are sometimes un justified. I read on a card recently too, where a guy won a large amount from blackjack and the casino refused to pay him. They had threatened he takes a very small amount of his win or nothing and theh guy got agree then sued them. He actually won the case, and it' was ruled in his favor. I hope this case gets similar though..

[iv4n]

I was curious if the case is still ongoing, but it looks like the guy lost the case. I was looking for more info and found a post on X saying that on July 9th, DraftKings was granted a summary judgment motion against Bavas.

Thanks for sharing this... It was in my news feed this morning, and I thought it was still ongoing.

It's interesting to read comments. As always, there are many different opinions... and some great comments.

Did I write somewhere that they lost? Sure, they won the lawsuit, but that doesn't change the fact that they've disgraced themselves, and now any bettor (especially high rollers) will suspect that if they win big, DrawtKings will find a way to cancel their winnings. In this sense, they definitely lost, and my question remains relevant: wasn’t it logical to sacrifice these 14 million for the benefit of their image?
Now there's reason to doubt DraftKings on literally everything you look for in a bookmaker: honesty, competence, transparency, security.

They won the lawsuit, but maybe they lost a lot more than 14 million... I'm not sure where the logic is, but I guess we will see how this will reflect on their business. It's definitely not fair... the guy saw a chance while following a tournament, and it's on a casino to adjust their odds, or even remove some markets on time. If adding rules after is true, they even made it worse...

Good luck to all players, and I hope this guy will get out of this mess...