Leases, Commitments and Contingencies | Leases, Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases corporate office facilities, data centers, and motor vehicles under operating lease agreements. Some of the Company’s leases include one or more options to renew. For a majority of the Company’s leases, it does not assume renewals in its determination of the lease term as the renewals are not deemed to be reasonably assured. The Company’s lease agreements generally do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. As of June 30, 2024, the Company’s lease agreements typically have terms not exceeding ten years. Payments under the Company’s lease arrangements may be fixed or variable, and variable lease payments primarily represent costs related to common area maintenance and utilities. The components of lease expense are as follows: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, 2024 2023 2024 2023 Operating lease cost $ 5,042 $ 3,490 $ 9,870 $ 8,519 Short term lease cost — 530 343 1,861 Variable lease cost 422 1,714 1,938 2,832 Sublease income — (231) — (468) Total lease cost $ 5,464 $ 5,503 $ 12,151 $ 12,744 Supplemental cash flow and other information for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and 2023 related to operating leases was as follows: Six months ended June 30, 2024 2023 Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: Operating cash flows used for operating leases $ 4,527 $ 6,123 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities $ 2,579 $ 366 The weighted-average remaining lease term and weighted-average discount rate for the Company’s operating leases were 6.9 years and 6.5% as of June 30, 2024. The Company calculated the weighted-average discount rates using incremental borrowing rates, which equal the rates of interest that it would pay to borrow funds on a fully collateralized basis over a similar term. Maturities of lease liabilities are as follows: Years Ending December 31, From July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 $ 8,655 2025 15,288 2026 14,720 2027 15,565 2028 16,246 Thereafter 39,685 Total undiscounted future cash flows 110,159 Less: Imputed interest (20,515) Present value of undiscounted future cash flows $ 89,644 Other Contractual Obligations and Contingencies The Company is a party to several non-cancelable contracts with vendors where the Company is obligated to make future minimum payments under the terms of these contracts as follows: Years Ending December 31, From July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 $ 249,782 2025 380,681 2026 215,761 2027 120,668 2028 86,952 Thereafter 181,979 Total $ 1,235,823 Surety Bonds As of June 30, 2024 , the Company has been issued $265.0 million in surety bonds at a combined annual premium cost of 0.4%, which are held for certain regulators’ use and benefit in order for the Company to satisfy state license requirements. There have been no claims against such bonds and the likelihood of future claims is remote. Contingencies From time to time, and in the ordinary course of business, the Company may be subject to certain claims, charges and litigation concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of the Company’s business activities. Interactive Games LLC On June 14, 2019, Interactive Games LLC filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that our Daily Fantasy Sports product offering infringes two patents and the Company’s Sportsbook product offering infringes two different patents. On April 9, 2024, Interactive Games LLC dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. Winview Inc. On July 7, 2021, Winview Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which was subsequently amended on July 28, 2021, alleging that our Sportsbook product offering infringes two patents, our Daily Fantasy Sports product offering infringes one patent, and that our Sportsbook product offering and Daily Fantasy Sports product offering infringe another patent. On November 15, 2021, Winview Inc. filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), adding as defendants DK Crown Holdings Inc. (“DK DE”) and Crown Gaming Inc., a Delaware corporation, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. The SAC largely repeats the allegations of the first amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company is infringing the asserted patents, it may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company to modify certain features that we currently offer. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Securities Matters Arising From the Hindenburg Report and Related Matters Beginning on July 9, 2021, the Company received subpoenas from the SEC seeking documents concerning, among other things, allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in a report published about the Company on June 15, 2021 by Hindenburg Research, as well as the Company’s adherence to and 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. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the SEC matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in the SEC 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the SEC matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Matters Related to the GNOG Transaction On August 12, 2022, a putative class action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County against Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. (“GNOG Inc.”), the Company and one of its officers and two affiliates, as well as former officers or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc. and Jefferies LLC. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. alleging that certain former officers and directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and the other defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On September 9, 2022, two similar putative class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against former directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder, one of which also names the Company and Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. as defendants. These pending actions in Delaware assert substantially similar claims on behalf of a putative class of former minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. alleging that certain former officers and directors of GNOG Inc. and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta) breached their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG Inc. in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and one of the actions also alleges that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On October 12, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated these two actions under the caption In re Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. Stockholders Litigation. At a mediation held on January 24, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware action, which was reflected in a written settlement agreement, dated March 1, 2024. On July 9, 2024, the Delaware Court entered its Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the action. The deadline to file an appeal is August 8, 2024. If no appeal is filed on or before that date, the Order and Final Judgment dismissing the action becomes final. The estimated loss was accrued as of December 31, 2023 in the accounts payable and accrued expenses line-item on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Nevada action. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the Nevada action or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss of the Nevada action. Any adverse outcome in the Nevada action 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the Nevada action will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's 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 the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that the Company's DFS and Casino product offerings infringe four patents. On October 12, 2021, Arrow Gaming filed an amended complaint to add one additional patent. On December 20, 2021, Arrow Gaming filed a second amended complaint adding new allegations with respect to alleged willful infringement. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company is infringing the asserted patents, it may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company to modify certain features that we currently offer. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Beteiro, LLC On November 22, 2021, Beteiro, LLC 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 product offerings infringe four patents. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company is infringing the asserted patents, it may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company to modify certain features that we currently offer. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's 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 the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Sportsbook product offering infringes seven patents. Colossus amended its complaint on February 7, 2022 to, among other things, add one additional patent. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. In the event that a court ultimately determines that the Company is infringing the asserted patents, it may be subject to substantial damages, which may include treble damages and/or an injunction that could require the Company to modify certain features that we currently offer. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Steiner Nelson Steiner filed suit against the Company and FanDuel Inc. in Florida state court on November 9, 2015. The action was subsequently transferred to In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation (Multi-District Litigation) (the “MDL”), and Mr. Steiner’s action was consolidated into the MDL’s amended complaint, which, in February 2016, consolidated numerous actions (primarily purported class actions) filed against the Company, FanDuel, and other related parties in courts across the United States. By June 23, 2022, the MDL was resolved, except for Mr. Steiner’s action, and the court officially closed the MDL docket on July 8, 2022. Mr. Steiner brings this action as a concerned citizen of the state of Florida alleging that, among other things, defendants’ daily fantasy sports contests are illegal gambling under the state laws of Florida and seeks disgorgement of “gambling losses” purportedly suffered by Florida citizens on behalf of the state. On June 23, 2022, the MDL court remanded Mr. Steiner’s action to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida. Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended pleading. The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit. Any adverse outcome in this matter could be subject the Company to substantial damages and it could be restricted from offering DFS contests in Florida. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Turley On January 9, 2023, Simpson G. Turley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he was a contestant in the Company’s daily fantasy showdown contest for the January 2, 2023, NFL game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills (the “Bengals-Bills Game”). The Bengals-Bills Game was postponed and eventually cancelled due to Damar Hamlin collapsing during the game. Plaintiff alleges that he was winning prizes in multiple showdown contests at the point in time that the Bengals-Bills Game was cancelled (with 5:58 remaining in the first quarter). Plaintiff alleges that, instead of paying out the prize money, the Company refunded entry fees to contestants that entered showdown or flash draft fantasy contests. On May 8, 2023, plaintiff Turley and a new plaintiff (Erik Ramos) filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Among other things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. On March 29, 2024, the court granted DraftKings’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. Securities Matters Arising From DraftKings Marketplace and Related Matters On March 9, 2023, a putative class action was filed in Massachusetts federal court by alleged purchasers of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the DraftKings Marketplace (“DK Marketplace”). The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal and state securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that, among other things, the NFTs that are sold and traded on the DK Marketplace allegedly constitute securities that were not registered with the SEC in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law, and that the DK Marketplace is a securities exchange that is not registered in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law. Based on these allegations, plaintiff brings claims seeking rescissory damages and other relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased NFTs on the DK Marketplace between August 11, 2021 and the present. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Beginning in July 2023, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and/or requesting answers to interrogatories concerning, among other things, DK Marketplace NFTs that are sold on DK Marketplace, the blockchain on which the NFTs were minted and digital assets and validator nodes associated with that blockchain, and related matters. We intend to comply with these requests. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, penalties and/or require alterations to the Company’s business that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows. Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Related to DraftKings Marketplace On May 31, 2023, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in Nevada state court by an alleged shareholder of the Company. The action asserts claims on behalf of the Company against certain senior officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to disseminate misleading and inaccurate information to its shareholders in connection with NFTs that are sold and traded on the DK Marketplace. The action also alleges that certain individuals are liable for trading in Company stock at artificially inflated prices. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorney’s fees, and other unspecified relief. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Because this action alleges claims on behalf of the Company and purports to seek a judgment in favor of the Company, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Scanlon On December 8, 2023, plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Shane Harris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in Middlesex County Superior Court of Massachusetts. On March 26, 2024, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Company’s promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 in site credits, and related advertisements, were: (1) unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws (“M.G.L.”) c. 93A, §§ 2, 9; and (2) untrue and misleading advertising in violation of M.G.L. c. 266, § 91. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, injunctive relief, actual damages, double or treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and/or require alterations to the Company’s business. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Guery On April 17, 2024, plaintiff Samantha Guery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to place their first wager “risk free” was (1) “deceptive, unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair” in violation of New York General Business Law Section 349; and (2) false advertising under New York General Business Law Section 350. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and/or require alterations to the Company’s business. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. McAfee On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew McAfee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in the Hamilton County Superior Court, State of Indiana. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that those customers who had winning bets placed and accepted on the October 24, 2023 Lakers versus Nuggets basketball game that were subsequently canceled by DraftKings for obvious error were not timely canceled and should have been paid. Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act – Incurable Deceptive Act; (2) Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act – Uncured Deceptive Act; and (3) breach of contract. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, actual and statutory damages, treble and exemplary damages, interest, and attorney fees and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and/or require alterations to the Company’s business. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company 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, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Internal Revenue Service The Company is currently under Internal Revenue Service audit for prior tax years, with the primary unresolved issues relating to excise taxation of fantasy sports contests and informational reporting and withholding. The final resolution of that audit, and other audits or litigation, may differ from the amounts recorded in these consolidated financial statements and may materially affect the Company’s consolidated financial statements in the period or periods in which that determination is made. |