An Iowa sports bettor is asking a federal court to award more than $14 million after DraftKings voided five golf parlays tied to a rain-shortened PGA Tour event at Pebble Beach.

The lawsuit, filed by Dallas County resident Nicholas Bavas, centers on a late-night run of wagers placed on February 3 and early February 4, 2024, while the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am market was still available. The PGA Tour later declared the tournament final after 54 holes because of severe weather, leaving Bavas to argue that the leaderboard the bets relied on became the official result.

 A strategy built around the weather forecast

According to the complaint, Bavas believed the final round was at risk before he placed his wagers. The filing describes him reviewing weather forecasts and interpreting the possibility of a cancellation as the central variable in the market.

The case does not dispute the golf outcome. Wyndham Clark led after Saturday’s third round and was later recognized as the champion when play did not resume. Instead, the dispute turns on whether DraftKings’ decision to keep betting open late Saturday night created enforceable contracts tied to a leaderboard that ultimately became final.

That framing matters because the wagers were not single, straight bets on a winner. They were parlays, the kind that require multiple correct outcomes, built around the top of the board.

The five tickets and the $14.2 million figure

The court filing lists five accepted wagers totaling $325. Bet No. 1 was placed at 10:04 p.m. Central time on February 3 for $100, with DraftKings displaying a potential payout of $4,651,571.26 if all selections were correct.

The complaint lists a second wager at 11:22 p.m., a $50 version of the same “20 picks” parlay, with a potential payout of $2,325,785.63. A third wager followed at 11:59 p.m., another $100 ticket showing a possible return of $4,651,571.26.

A fourth wager was accepted at 12:01 a.m. on February 4, a $50 parlay with a listed payout of $2,325,785.63. The filing also details a separate $25 “20 pick” parlay placed at 10:18 p.m., selecting 20 golfers to finish in the top 20 in no particular order, with DraftKings showing a potential return of $250,067.99.

Taken together, the complaint says the displayed payouts amounted to $14,204,782.26. In the suit, Bavas alleges DraftKings later voided the bets and refunded the $325 stake.

 When the PGA Tour made the leaderboard final

The Pebble Beach Pro-Am was repeatedly delayed on Sunday, February 4, as storms moved through the Monterey Peninsula. The complaint states the PGA Tour later announced there would be no play on February 5 and that, under its regulations, “the tournament results will be final through the conclusion of 54 holes.”

That confirmation effectively locked in the standings as they stood after Saturday. In the lawsuit, Bavas argues that the conditions contemplated by his wagers occurred: the tournament ended after three rounds, and the top of the leaderboard matched the structure of his selections.

Golf betting markets often assume a 72-hole event, and the Pebble Beach result triggered broader questions about settlement policies across sportsbooks. Reporting at the time described bettors debating whether wagers should be paid, voided, or graded under minimum-length rules and market-specific house terms.

DK Settlement position and the “future bets” dispute

In early February 2024, DraftKings issued a statement during the broader Pebble Beach settlement controversy, saying it was reviewing the settlement of certain bets and that “DraftKings’ house rules are currently the same as they were at the start of this event.” The statement did not address Bavas’ specific wagers, but it established the company’s position that existing rules controlled.

Bavas’ complaint quotes and summarizes DraftKings’ golf rules and related market rules, describing them as overlapping and difficult for customers to parse. It argues that, in practice, the company reserves broad discretion to void wagers, particularly when it views a bet as placed on information that had already become determinative.

The lawsuit challenges DraftKings’ reliance on a rule governing “future bets,” which the complaint describes as allowing cancellation if a wager is placed after the last shot of what is later deemed the final round. Bavas’s attorney, Ben Lynch, has disputed whether that applies to the type of multi-player, position-based parlays at issue.

Coverage of the dispute has circulated widely, including at BonusFinder, in part because it sits at the intersection of live markets, weather disruptions, and the practical limits of automated settlement systems.

What the complaint alleges: breach of contract and consumer protection claims

The filing asserts multiple counts, including breach of contract claims tied to each of the five wagers and allegations involving the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Iowa law. It also invokes Iowa’s consumer protection statute governing unlawful practices, alleging the defendants’ conduct was likely to mislead consumers about how accepted bets would be honored.

The complaint characterizes sportsbook governance as “a dizzying array of interlocking sets of rules that may or may not govern each bet depending on the type of wager placed, the specific event, and the particular sport.” It adds that when DraftKings “makes an error” or when an unforeseen event requires a large payout, “it seems different rules apply.”

Lynch has framed the dispute as a question of whether a sportsbook can retroactively treat accepted wagers as mistakes. In a local radio interview, he said, “If you lost, they took your money. If you won, they gave you a refund.” In separate coverage, Lynch told a betting industry outlet, “I’ve yet to find one that’s worth $14 million that has been publicly filed.”

The complaint also notes that a copy of the petition was provided to the Iowa Attorney General under state law.

 The case’s procedural path and the broader context

Bavas filed the lawsuit in the Iowa state court in April 2025. DraftKings Inc. and Crown IA Gaming later removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, where it is now docketed in Des Moines.

The dispute arrives at a time when courts and regulators are still building a record of precedent around app-based sports wagering. Golf markets, in particular, introduce settlement complications because tournaments can be shortened and market offerings range from winners to placement groups to multi-leg parlays.

Other operators have described their own approaches in similar circumstances. In reporting by GOLF.com during the Pebble Beach controversy, a FanDuel spokesperson said bets placed after the completion of the third round were voided, and BetMGM’s published policy described cancelling bets placed after the last completed round when a tournament is shortened.

For now, the Bavas complaint presents a specific question for the court: whether the wagers DraftKings accepted late on February 3 and into February 4 constituted enforceable contracts that had to be graded as winners once the PGA Tour declared the event final after 54 holes.

The answer, if it comes, will likely turn on how the court reads the governing terms and whether it views the settlement decision as a permissible application of house rules or an after-the-fact change to what the wagers promised.