Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
We are involved in a number of legal proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. These proceedings are at varying stages, and many of these proceedings seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.
For certain cases described on the following pages, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are in various stages; (ii) damages have not been sought; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties involved. For these cases, however, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation (Multi-District Litigation)
Between late 2015 and early 2016, certain individuals who allegedly registered and competed in daily sports fantasy contests on our and FanDuel’s websites, and their family members, filed numerous actions (primarily purported class actions) against us, FanDuel, and other related parties (the “DFS defendants”) in courts across the United States. In February 2016, these actions were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 2, 2016, the consolidated group of plaintiffs filed their First Amended Master Class Action Complaint, superseding their original class action complaint, which superseded their individual complaints.
The plaintiffs assert 27 claims arising under both state and federal law against the DFS defendants. The plaintiffs’ claims against us generally fall into four categories: (1) our online daily fantasy sports contests constitute illegal gambling; (2) we promulgated false or misleading advertisements that emphasized the ease of play and likelihood of winning; (3) we induced consumers to lose money through a deceptive bonus program; and (4) we allowed our employees to participate in competitors’ fantasy sports contests using non-public information, which gave such employees an unfair advantage over other contestants. The plaintiffs seek money damages, equitable relief, and disgorgement of gains against us.
On November 16, 2016, the DFS defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration against all named plaintiffs except one plaintiff asserting claims against the DFS defendants as a concerned citizen of the State of Florida (the “Concerned Citizen Claims”). On November 27, 2019, the Court granted the DFS defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with respect to all named plaintiffs other than a small set of plaintiffs who are family members of individuals who have DraftKings or FanDuel accounts and who assert claims under various state laws regarding gambling (the “Family Member Plaintiffs”). On March 9, 2020, the DFS defendants moved to dismiss the Family Member Plaintiffs’ claims and the Concerned Citizen Claims. On April 7, 2020, an opposition to the motion to dismiss the Concerned Citizen Claim was filed. On April 20, 2020, the Family Member Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the DFS defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on April 29, 2020, the Family Member Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the First Amended Master Class Action Complaint. On May 11, 2020, the DFS defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss the Family Member Plaintiffs’ claims and the Concerned Citizen Claims, and on May 13, 2020, the DFS defendants filed their opposition to the Family Member Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the First Amended Master Class Action Complaint. On March 5, 2020, one named plaintiff with respect to whom the motion to compel was granted filed a renewed motion to remand his case to state court. On May 29, 2020, we filed an opposition to that motion.
On March 3, 2021, DraftKings and the plaintiffs (other than the Family Member Plaintiffs) filed in Court a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, which the Court granted on June 15, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the Court entered judgment and an order approving a settlement and dismissing the claims with prejudice brought by all plaintiffs except the Family Member Plaintiffs and the Concerned Citizen Claims. This settlement agreement became effective on November 5, 2021; as a result, the only remaining plaintiffs are the Family Member Plaintiffs and the plaintiff who asserted the Concerned Citizen Claims. On January 21, 2022, DraftKings and the Family Member Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement. On February 18, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and scheduled a fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement on June 8, 2022. Once the family member
34
settlement agreement becomes effective, the only remaining plaintiff will be the plaintiff who asserted the Concerned Citizen Claims.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. If the plaintiffs were to obtain a judgment in their favor in this lawsuit, we may be subject to substantial damages and we may have to withdraw our DFS operations in certain states. We have established an accrual for this matter. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Attorney General of Texas
On January 19, 2016, the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion letter that “odds are favorable that a court would conclude that participation in paid daily fantasy sports leagues constitutes illegal gambling” under Texas law. In response to the opinion letter, we sued the Texas Attorney General on March 4, 2016 in Dallas County, Texas.
The lawsuit makes five claims: (1) a claim for a declaratory judgment that daily fantasy sports contests do not violate Texas law; (2) a claim of denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; (3) a claim of denial of due course of law under Article I of the Texas Constitution; (4) a claim of denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (5) a claim of denial of equal rights under Article I of the Texas Constitution. We are also seeking reimbursement of our costs and attorneys’ fees.
On May 2, 2016, the Texas Attorney General filed a motion to transfer venue to Travis County, Texas. On April 16, 2018, the parties filed a notice of agreed non-suit without prejudice, and we re-filed our lawsuit against the Texas Attorney General in Travis County. On April 17, 2018, the Dallas County court granted the parties’ agreed non-suit without prejudice, thereby dismissing the Dallas County lawsuit without prejudice.
On May 24, 2018, the Texas Attorney General answered the complaint filed in Travis County, Texas.
FanDuel filed a petition in intervention on August 24, 2018, seeking essentially the same relief as DraftKings seeks. The Court entered an updated scheduling order setting the case for a non-jury trial on April 20, 2021. The parties subsequently filed an agreed motion to extend the scheduling order seeking, among other things, to change the non-jury trial date to January 23, 2023.
We intend to vigorously pursue our claims. In the event a court ultimately determines that daily fantasy sports contests violate Texas law, that determination could cause financial harm to us and loss of business in Texas.
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liabilities.
We do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Interactive Games LLC
On June 14, 2019, Interactive Games LLC (“IG”) filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In the Complaint, IG alleges that our daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) product infringes two patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,956,231 (the “231 Patent”), which is entitled “Multi-process communication regarding gaming information”, and U.S. Patent No. 8,974,302 (the “302 Patent”), which is entitled “Multi-process communication regarding gaming information.” That same Complaint alleges that our Sportsbook product infringes two additional patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,616,967 (the “967 Patent”), which is entitled “System and method for convenience gaming” and U.S. Patent No. 9,430,901 (the “901 Patent”), which is entitled “System and method for wireless gaming with location determination.” All four of these patents are collectively referred to as the “IG Patents.”
In response to the complaint, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under 35 U.S.C. Section 101, asserting the IG Patents are directed to non-patentable subject matter. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion, as the judge previously stayed
35
the District Court litigation pending resolution of the inter partes reviews and dismissed the motion to dismiss (without ruling on the merits), but granted leave to refile such motion with updated briefing if the stay is lifted.
On June 17, 2020, we filed petitions for inter partes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) challenging the validity of each of the IG Patents. The PTAB instituted review for the ‘901 Patent, the ‘231 Patent, and the ‘967 Patent but denied institution for the ‘302 Patent. On February 5, 2021, we filed a request for rehearing regarding the decision on the ‘302 Patent, which was denied by the PTAB on March 2, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the PTAB heard oral argument on the ’901 Patent, the ’231 Patent, and the ’967 Patent. On January 4, 2022, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims of the ’901 Patent, the ’231 Patent, and the ’967 Patent unpatentable. On March 8, 2022, IG appealed the final written decisions for all three instituted inter partes reviews. On April 19, 2022, IG moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal for the inter partes review related to the ’901 Patent, which was granted on April 20, 2022. The District Court litigation remains stayed pending resolution of all appeals from the inter partes reviews.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we are infringing the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to modify certain features that we currently offer.
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. We also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Winview Inc.
On July 7, 2021, Winview Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Winview”) filed suit against DraftKings Inc., a Nevada corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, Winview alleges that DraftKings infringe two patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,878,243 (“the ’243 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for Equalizing Systemic Latencies in Television Reception in Connection with Games of Skill Played in Connection with Live Television Programming”, and U.S. Patent No. 10,721,543 (“the ’543 Patent”), entitled “Method of and System for Managing Client Resources and Assets for Activities on Computing Devices”. The allegations based on the ’243 Patent are directed to Sportsbook, and the allegations based on the ‘543 Patent are directed to both Sportsbook and DFS.
On July 28, 2021, Winview filed an amended complaint, in which it alleges that DraftKings infringes two additional patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,993,730 (“the ’730 Patent”), entitled ”Methodology for Equalizing Systemic Latencies in Television Reception in Connection with Games of Skill Played in Connection with Live Television Programming”, and U.S. Patent No. 10,806,988 (“the ’988 Patent”), entitled “Method Of and System For Conducting Multiple Contests of Skill with a Single Performance”. The allegations based on the ’730 Patent are directed at Sportsbook, and the allegations based on the ’988 Patent are directed at DFS.
On October 4, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss Winview’s direct infringement claims for the ’543 Patent and the ’ 730 Patent, as well as its claims for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. On October 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation that allowed Winview to file a second amended complaint on or before November 15, 2021, which the court signed and ordered on November 1, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, Winview filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), adding as defendants DK DE and Crown Gaming Inc., a Delaware corporation, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of DraftKings. The SAC, among other allegations, repeats the allegations of the first amended complaint that the defendants infringe the ’243 Patent, the ’543 Patent, the ’730 Patent, and the ’988 Patent. On December 15, 2021, DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss the SAC, again arguing that Winview failed to state a claim for direct infringement of the ’543 Patent and the ’730 Patent, and for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. Winview filed its memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 24, 2022, and DraftKings filed its reply brief to Winview’s opposition on January 31, 2022.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we are infringing the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to modify certain features that we currently offer.
36
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. We also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Securities Matters
On July 2, 2021, the first of two substantially similar federal securities law putative class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers. The actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings stock between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in a report published about DraftKings on June 15, 2021 by Hindenburg Research (the “Hindenburg Report”). We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. On November 12, 2021, the court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re DraftKings Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 11, 2022. On February 22, 2022, defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action, and in response, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 5, 2022. On April 26, 2022, defendants again filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action. That motion remains pending.
Beginning on July 9, 2021, the Company received subpoenas from the SEC seeking documents concerning, among other things, certain of the allegations raised in the Hindenburg Report, as well as the Company’s disclosures regarding its compliance policies and procedures, and related matters. The Company intends to comply with the related requests and is cooperating with the SEC’s ongoing inquiry.
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. We also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in these matters could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such perio d.
Shareholder Derivative Litigation
On October 21, 2021, the first of five substantially similar putative shareholder derivative actions was filed in Nevada by alleged shareholders of the Company. The actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and/or members of the board of directors of the Company and DEAC. The two actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada have since been consolidated, and two of the actions filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County likewise have been consolidated. A substantially identical fifth action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County and has been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff. The same plaintiff filed a substantially identical action in Massachusetts Superior Court, which has also been dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff. The Nevada actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in the Hindenburg Report. The federal court action in Nevada also contends that certain individuals are liable to the Company for any adverse judgment in the federal securities class actions described above under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The Nevada actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, equitable and injunctive relief, restitution, costs and attorney's fees.
The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Because the Nevada actions allege claims on behalf of the Company and purport to seek judgments in favor of the Company, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on
37
DraftKings’ financial condition, although the outcome could be material to DraftKings’ operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
AG 18, LLC d/b/a/ Arrow Gaming
On August 19, 2021, AG 18, LLC d/b/a/ Arrow Gaming (“Arrow Gaming”) filed a complaint against DraftKings in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that DraftKings’ DFS and Casino products infringe four patents. On October 12, 2021, Arrow Gaming filed an amended complaint to add one additional patent. The following U.S. Patents are asserted against one or both of DraftKings’ DFS and Casino products in the amended complaint: (1) U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498 (“the ’498 Patent”), entitled “Systems and Methods For Peer-to-Peer Gaming”; (2) U.S. Patent No. 9,978,205 (“the ’205 Patent”), entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”; (3) U.S. Patent No. 10,497,220 (“the ’220 Patent”) entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”); (4) U.S. Patent No. 10,614,657 (“the ’657 Patent”) entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”; and (5) U.S. Patent No. 11,024,131 (“the ’131 Patent”) entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming” (collectively, the “Arrow Gaming Patents”).
On November 9, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On November 10, 2021, we answered the complaint and filed counterclaims (the “Counterclaims”). In the Counterclaims we seek, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the Arrow Gaming Patents are invalid. On December 1, 2021, Arrow Gaming answered our Counterclaims. On December 20, 2021, Arrow Gaming filed a second amended complaint adding new allegations with respect to the alleged willful infringement.
On January 21, 2022, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint. On February 22, 2022, plaintiff filed its opposition to DraftKings’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and on March 25, 2022, DraftKings filed its reply thereto. On March 7, 2022, DraftKings filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel. On March 21, 2022, plaintiff filed its opposition to DraftKings’ motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, and on March 28, 2022, DraftKings filed its reply thereto.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we are infringing the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to modify certain features that we currently offer.
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. We also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Beteiro, LLC
On November 22, 2021, Beteiro, LLC (“Beteiro”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company’s Sportsbook and Casino products infringe four patents. The following U.S. Patents are asserted against Company’s Sportsbook and Casino products in the complaint: U.S. Patent No. 9,965,920, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’920 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,043,341, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’341 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,147,266, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’266 Patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,255,755, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Gaming Activity and/or Gambling Activity” (“the ’755 Patent”) (collectively, the “Beteiro Patents”).
DraftKings’ filed its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on February 9, 2022. On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed its opposition to DraftKings’ motion to dismiss, and on April 25, 2022, DraftKings filed its reply thereto.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we are infringing the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to modify certain features that we currently offer.
38
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. We also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Diogenes Ltd. & Colossus (IOM) Ltd.
On December 1, 2021, Diogenes Ltd. & Colossus (IOM) Ltd. (“Colossus”), filed a complaint against DraftKings in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Sportsbook product infringes seven of its patents. The following U.S. Patents, each entitled “Wagering apparatus, methods and systems”, are asserted against the Company’s Sportsbook product in the complaint: U.S. Patent No. 8,721,439 (“the ’439 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,117,341 (“the ’341 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,275,516 (“the ’516 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,424,716 (“the ’716 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,704,338 (“the ’338 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,970,969 (“the ’969 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,997,822 (“the ’822 patent”).
On January 24, 2022, DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss the original complaint. On February 7, 2022, Colossus filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) to, among other things, assert one additional patent against DraftKings, U.S. Patent No. 11,200,779 (“the ’779 patent”).
DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 22, 2022. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to DraftKings’ motion to dismiss, and on March 29, 2022, DraftKings’ filed its reply thereto. On March 25, 2022, a scheduling order was entered in which, among other things, trial was scheduled for January 13, 2025.
We intend to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that we are infringing the asserted patents, we may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require us to modify certain features that we currently offer.
We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. We also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.
Despite the potential for significant damages, we do not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, although the outcome could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Other
In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.