US Regulator Orders DraftKings to Pay $934,000

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) ordered sportsbook operator DraftKings to pay a player winnings totaling $934,000.

Decision by the Massachusetts Regulator

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission unanimously rejected the operator’s attempt to void the payouts on the winning bets.

The regulator sided with the customer, stating that responsibility for the proper functioning of the betting system lies entirely with the operator.

The Nature of the DraftKings Error

Incorrect Player Classification

In October, a DraftKings employee mistakenly marked Toronto Blue Jays baseball player Nathan Lukes as a non-participant.

Because of this error, the system failed to activate safeguards designed to block the combination of correlated bets on a single player.

Failure in Trading Tools

An incorrect configuration of internal trading tools allowed multiple bets on Lukes’ individual statistics to be combined into a single parlay.

DraftKings acknowledged that the issue originated within the company and was not related to external data providers.

Player Actions and Bet Details

Series of Parlay Bets

The bettor placed 27 parlay bets totaling $12,900, using the market “player to record X+ hits in the series.”

Each bet combined multiple thresholds—5+, 6+, 7+, and 8+ hits—effectively boosting the odds.

Additional Outcomes

To increase potential payouts, the parlays also included high-probability bets, including NFL game outcomes.

Out of the 27 bets, 24 were winning bets, while three lost due to unrelated college football events.

Outcome of the Sporting Event

Nathan Lukes appeared in all seven games of the series and finished with nine hits, exceeding every listed threshold.

This resulted in total winnings of $934,137 for the player.

DraftKings’ Position

Attempt to Recalculate the Winnings

After identifying the error, the operator recalculated the result and offered a payout of $95,700 instead of the full amount.

DraftKings argued that the bets should never have been accepted and described the customer’s actions as unethical.

Commission Response

Commission members rejected these arguments, noting that the player acted within the conditions made available by the operator.

The regulator emphasized that such situations do not meet the definition of an “obvious error.”

Further Actions by the Operator

DraftKings suspended the affected markets, implemented technical fixes, and stated that no other customers in Massachusetts were impacted.

At the same time, a similar issue was identified in two other jurisdictions.