Massachusetts regulators have ordered DraftKings to pay out $934,137 in winnings after rejecting the company’s attempt to void a series of MLB parlay bets tied to an internal configuration mistake. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) voted unanimously, 5-0, concluding that the wagers were valid as accepted and that responsibility for the error rested with the operator.
The disputed bets stemmed from the 2025 American League Championship Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Seattle Mariners. A single Massachusetts customer placed 27 multi-leg parlays connected to DraftKings’ “Player to Record X+ Hits in Series” markets involving Blue Jays outfielder Nathan Lukes. In total, the bettor staked $12,950 across those wagers.
Internal Trading Error Enabled Correlated Parlays
DraftKings acknowledged that a misclassification within its trading tools incorrectly labeled Lukes as a “non-participant” instead of an active player. That designation bypassed safeguards designed to prevent bettors from combining correlated outcomes within the same market. As a result, the customer was able to parlay multiple hit thresholds — 5+, 6+, 7+, and 8+ hits — into single wagers.
Those thresholds effectively created a single wager on Lukes reaching eight or more hits in the series, but at significantly enhanced odds. Some of the parlays also included unrelated legs, such as NFL moneyline outcomes, to further increase potential payouts.
Lukes appeared in all seven games of the series and recorded nine total hits, surpassing every listed threshold. Of the 27 parlays, 24 would have paid out in full. Three included unrelated college football legs involving Clemson, Florida State, and Miami that ultimately lost.
DraftKings argued the bets should never have been accepted and asked regulators to approve a partial void. Under that proposal, the lower hit thresholds would be voided as correlated selections, leaving only the 8+ hits leg and any unrelated outcomes to be settled. That approach would have reduced the payout to $95,742.53, including returned stakes.
Commission Pushback and Heated Exchange
During the commission’s meeting, DraftKings representatives described the bettor’s conduct as unethical and suggested fraud. That characterization drew sharp criticism from commissioners, particularly Eileen O’Brien.
“An obvious error is a legal and factual impossibility,” O’Brien said according to Bookies.com. “This is an advantage that the patron took.”
She also objected to DraftKings’ depiction of the customer without supporting evidence. “We need to seriously consider giving voice to the consumer and getting their half the story,” O’Brien said. “The compulsion to pay will in fact encourage compliance.”
Other commissioners echoed concerns about the tone of DraftKings’ request and the information provided. Commissioner Nakisha Skinner told the company, “You have to make the case for us. To help us make a decision on the requests that come before us.”
DraftKings conceded that the error was internal and not caused by a third-party data provider. The company said it removed the affected markets after discovering the issue, left the wagers unsettled pending regulatory guidance, and implemented corrective fixes. DraftKings also stated that no other Massachusetts customers were impacted, although similar errors occurred in two other jurisdictions.
Different Outcomes Across States
Regulatory responses varied outside Massachusetts. New Jersey regulators denied DraftKings’ void request and required full payouts, citing state rules that prohibit voiding wagers due to “obvious error.” In Pennsylvania, however, regulators allowed DraftKings to void similar bets after determining the company’s house rules permitted wagers accepted in error to be canceled. The total liability in Pennsylvania was less than $10,000.
New Jersey’s decision affected six bettors who placed 93 wagers totaling just over $44,000 in handle, with payouts of approximately $1.8 million. Combined with the Massachusetts ruling, the error resulted in nearly $3 million in required customer payouts across states.
Broader Regulatory Scrutiny as DraftKings Expands Offerings
The Massachusetts ruling arrives as DraftKings continues to broaden its product footprint beyond traditional sports betting. On December 19, the company launched its standalone DraftKings Predictions app in 38 states, significantly extending its reach into jurisdictions where online sports wagering is not legal. The expansion provides access to roughly 30% of the US population through sports event contracts.
Unlike DraftKings’ sportsbook products, the Predictions app operates under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than state gaming regulators. The platform allows users to trade contracts tied to sports and financial outcomes, with additional categories such as entertainment and culture expected to be introduced over time. The regulatory distinction places the product within a different legal framework than state-licensed sports betting.
