A Massachusetts DFS player has sued DraftKings for $5 million, claiming that the site failed to live up to its promise of a 100% first-time deposit bonus.
James Gardner originally made a $10 deposit on the fantasy site, but after losing his original stake, had failed to meet the $250 play requirement to clear his $10 Bonus. “It’s pretty clear that they are not being honest with the consumer,” commented Gardner’s attorney.
The multimillion dollar lawsuit argues that the site uses “deceptive, unfair and unethical” practices in its advertising and marketing efforts. Gardner seeks to recoup money not for just himself, but on behalf of DraftKings users nationwide.
The terms of service
The manner by which DraftKings awards its bonuses is fairly standard across the industry. After making a deposit, users receive a pending bonus amount, which varies according to the terms of the promotion. In order to turn the bonus into actual cash, users must amass frequent player points by betting on contests which, in turn, can be exchanged to unlock chunks of the reward.
DraftKings clearly states its bonus policy on its website’s frequently asked questions page. “Deposit bonuses release in increments of one dollar for every 100 frequent player points that you earn by playing in paid contests,” it says. “All deposit bonuses expire four months after they are created.”
In the lawsuit, Gardner hypothesizes what would happen to a player who deposited a more substantial amount. “At the high-end, a consumer who had deposited $600 would have to spend at least $15,000 on contests, and do so within four months to obtain what was promised as a ‘100% first-time deposit bonus’… of $600.
Whether it be $10, $600 or anything in between, a simple mathematical calculation can tell you exactly how much you have to play according to the rules stated on the site.
But Gardner is undeterred by that fact, and in addition, wants to remove DraftKings’ terms of service, which he says consists of “6000 words in singlespaced tiny print.”
DraftKings has yet to respond to the suit, but the company lawyers should have no problem fighting such a frivolous claim.