An effort by DraftKings to void a series of MLB wagers that have a payout of nearly $3 million has failed following separate rulings by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE).
The MGC held an open meeting this to discuss matters impacting the state’s retail and online gaming market. Commissioners considered various matters, including a void bet request filed by DraftKings Compliance Operations Manager of Sports Wagering Andrew Steffen. The void request stemmed from an “internal configuration error” caused by a DraftKings trader for total hit betting markets for Toronto Blue Jays outfielder Nathan Lukes during a 2025 ALCS matchup against the Seattle Mariners on Oct. 15.
DraftKings misclassified Lukes’ hit markets, incorrectly designating him a non-participant in the company’s suite of trading tools. The misclassification allowed a single Massachusetts patron to wager a total of $12,950 across 27 parlay wagers on the highest total hit threshold of 8+ at inflated odds “because the lesser thresholds added no independent element of chance,” according to void request documents filed by DraftKings in October.
The total liability of the parlay wagers with the misclassified market was $934,147. Some of the parlay wagers also included betting markets outside of MLB, notably NFL and college football. Three of the parlay wagers included losing legs outside of Lukes’ markets.
Lukes would finish the October contest against the Mariners with nine total hits. DraftKings proposed a partial void of the wagers, but the MGC voted against the request, requiring the company to pay the single Massachusetts patron the total liability of the parlay wagers.
“This misclassification bypassed internal safeguards designed to prevent correlated player prop selections from being combined within the same parlay,” DraftKings Director of Legal Peter Harrington told commissioners during the open meeting. “As a result, the patron was able to parlay multiple hit thresholds.”
DraftKings shares account history of sports bettor
DraftKings noted that there was no direct evidence that the patron knowingly exploited the error. However, Harrington disclosed that the patron’s deposit habits deviated from their “standard” account activity. The bettor’s deposits on Oct. 15 exceeded their lifetime deposits. Lifetime deposits were roughly $7,000 before deposits of over $12,000 in one day. DraftKings also shared that the patron may have shared information with a relative.
Harington also noted that its collaboration with other companies did not cause the issue.
“The root cause of the issue was an internal configuration error, not a third-party vendor or vendor supply feed or external system and DraftKings did not identify the error prior to the markets being offered,” continued Harrington.
Though Harrington brough up these issues with the MGC on the call, the information about the bettor’s deposit behavior and lifetime betting statistics were not supplied in its incident report to the MGC, something lamented by the commissioners.
“You [DraftKings] have to make the case for us,” said commissioner Nakisha Skinner. “To help us make a decision on the requests that come before us. We want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you just missed that mark. My advice is to please use this as a learning opportunity.”
MGC commissioners quick to reject the void request
The MGC commissioners voted against DraftKings’ void request for it being an error directly caused by DraftKings with the single patron placing bets using what the operator provided.
“From an observer’s point of view, there were bets available and this patron made them,” said MGC Commissioner Paul Brodeur during the meeting. “What would have happened if the player in question only got five hits? Then the patron would have lost a substantial amount of money based on his wagers.”
Harrington pointed out they contacted the patron before the bets were resolved in an attempt to cancel the wagers.
MGC commissioners also took issue with the information DraftKings provided in its void request and the tone it had toward the patron who took advantage of the company’s error.
“An obvious error is a legal and factual impossibility. I don’t believe that this was an obvious error. This was an advantage to the patron that he took,” said Commissioner Eileen O’Brien. “I take issue with casting aspersions on a patron, calling them dishonest and making allegations about relatives, etc. There was none of that evidence presented.”
New Jersey & Pennsylvania also impacted by error
The DGE also considered a void request from DraftKings over the misclassification of Luke’s total hit markets. The Garden State had six bettors place 93 wagers with the error-marked total hit DraftKings markets. The total handle of the wagers was just over $44,000 with a payout of $1.8 million. According to commissioners, the DGE denied DraftKings’ void request, mandating that the operator payout the total lability of the wagers.
SBC Americas reached out to the DGE, which declined to comment.
“It’s the cost of doing business, added Skinner.” You have to be diligent in your offerings. This is an obvious error for DraftKings. The in-house controls should have caught this.”
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) took a different approach to a request.
A PGCB spokesperson confirmed to SBC Americas that the regulator received a void bet request from DraftKings on Oct. 17 for the ALCS game in question and took a different approach compared to regulators in other jurisdictions that also received void requests.
The PGCB initiated a probe into the error by DraftKings and determined that the company’s house rules granted the operator the right to “void wagers accepted in error.” The total liability for the bets in Pennsylvania was less than $10,000 and placed by a single bettor.
The PGCB voided the payout for the wagers after its probe.
DraftKings granted a void request in 2023
Harrington made a case for the void request by bringing to the attention of the commissioners an incident in November 2023 of incorrect betting odds for NBA same game parlays caused by a third-party vendor. The incident involved 137 Massachusetts bettors who placed roughly $4,100 worth of wagers for a total liability of around $575,000.
The MGC granted DraftKings’ void request with conditions after a discussion regarding whether the error was obvious, the fairness to patrons and if voids would serve the public interest. The conditions required DraftKings to “provide uniform compensation in the form of cash equal to three times the original stake to all affected patrons.”
