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 December 31, 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: December 31, 2024 December 31, 2023 December 31, 2022 Operating lease cost $ 20,206 $ 19,175 $ 20,003 Short term lease cost 774 2,616 6,004 Variable lease cost 4,747 4,644 4,462 Sublease income — (704) (849) Total lease cost $ 25,727 $ 25,731 $ 29,620 Supplemental cash flow and other information for 2024 and 2023 related to operating leases was as follows: December 31, 2024 December 31, 2023 Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: Operating cash flows from operating leases $ 17,880 $ 13,561 Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities $ 4,417 $ 21,917 The weighted-average remaining lease term and weighted-average discount rate were as follows: December 31, 2024 December 31, 2023 Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years) 6.4 7.3 Weighted-average discount rate 6.5 % 6.5 % 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. Maturity of lease liabilities are as follows: December 31, 2025 $ 15,945 2026 15,599 2027 15,138 2028 15,531 2029 10,869 Thereafter 24,873 Total undiscounted future cash flows 97,955 Less: Imputed interest 19,302 Present value of undiscounted future cash flows $ 78,653 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: Year Ending December 31, 2025 $ 375,233 2026 141,263 2027 64,264 2028 38,211 2029 30,952 Thereafter 76,027 Total $ 725,950 Surety Bonds As of December 31, 2024, the Company has been issued $400.0 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 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. Unless otherwise indicated, for each of the matters described below, management does not believe that, despite the potential for significant damages, and based on currently available information, the outcome of any specific matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, though an outcome of a specific matter 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 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. FanDuel filed a petition in intervention on August 24, 2018, seeking essentially the same relief as the Company seeks. The parties filed an agreed motion to extend the scheduling order seeking, among other things, to change the non-jury trial date to January 27, 2026. 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. Winview I On July 7, 2021, Winview Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Winview”) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, Winview alleges that the Company infringes 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 the Company 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 November 15, 2021, Winview filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), adding as defendants DK Crown Holdings Inc. and Crown Gaming Inc., a Delaware corporation, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. 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, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the SAC, 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. On August 3, 2022, we filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the ‘243 Patent. On July 25, 2022, FanDuel filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the '543 and '730 Patents. On September 20, 2022, the court entered an order staying the pending motion to dismiss and staying all discovery pending final resolution of the petition for inter partes review through a final written decision. On February 15, 2023, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB’s final written decision. On January 29, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPRs, finding unpatentable all challenged claims of the ’243, ’543, and ’730 Patents. On February 16, 2024, the parties jointly requested that the case remain administratively terminated. On February 20, 2024, the court granted the request. On March 29, 2024, Winview filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the PTAB’s final written decisions in the IPRs. On April 11, 2024, the parties jointly requested that the district court litigation remain administratively terminated until at least the Federal Circuit issues its mandate regarding Winview’s appeals. On April 15, 2024, the district court ordered the case to remain administratively terminated. On June 26, 2024, Winview and DraftKings filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of Winview’s appeal. On June 28, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Winview’s appeal dismissed. On December 17, 2024, the court dismissed all of Winview’s claims with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,878,243 and 9,930,730. On January 6, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Winview’s direct infringement claims for U.S. Patent No. 10,721,543 as well as Winview’s claim for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for the two remaining patents-in-suit. The case remains stayed and administratively terminated pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. 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. 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. The following U.S. Patents are asserted against one or both of the Company’s DFS and Casino product offerings in the amended complaint: (1) U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498, entitled “Systems and Methods For Peer-to-Peer Gaming”; (2) U.S. Patent No. 9,978,205, entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”; (3) U.S. Patent No. 10,497,220 entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”; (4) U.S. Patent No. 10,614,657 entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming”; and (5) U.S. Patent No. 11,024,131 entitled “Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming” (collectively, the “Arrow Gaming Patents”). 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, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint. On October 21, 2022, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On November 4, 2022, the Company filed a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the below-referenced petitions for inter partes review. Between August 22, 2022 and August 30, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPRs”) with the PTAB challenging the validity of each of the Arrow Gaming Patents. On March 14, 2023, the PTAB granted institution of all IPRs. On March 12 and 13, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in all pending IPRs finding all claims that were asserted in the litigation unpatentable. Only two claims were not found unpatentable: claim 18 of the ’205 Patent and claim 11 of the ’657 Patent. Neither of these claims were asserted in the litigation brought by Arrow Gaming. On May 14, 2024, Arrow Gaming filed a Notice of Appeal of the IPR directed to the ’498 Patent. That appeal remains pending. On July 10, 2024, DraftKings filed a Notice of Appeal of the IPR directed to the ’205 Patent challenging the PTAB’s final written decision as to claim 18 of the ’205 Patent. That appeal remains pending. On April 3, 2023, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB’s final written decisions. The parties have agreed to maintain the stay pending any appeals of the PTAB’s final written decisions in the IPRs. 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. 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 of its patents. The following U.S. Patents, each entitled “Wagering apparatus, methods and systems”, are asserted against the Company’s Sportsbook product offering 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, the Company 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 the Company, U.S. Patent No. 11,200,779 (“the ’779 patent”). The patents asserted by Colossus are collectively referred to as the “Colossus Patents.” The Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 22, 2022. On July 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a report and recommendation (the “Report and Recommendation”) that the motion to dismiss be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. On August 26, 2022, District Court Judge Noreika adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke regarding the motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2022, the Company filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, including certain affirmative defenses. On January 17, 2023, Colossus filed a motion to strike the affirmative defense of unenforceability from the Company’s Answer. On February 7, 2023, the Company filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims to the Amended Complaint., and also filed a response to Colossus’ motion to strike. On February 28, 2023, Colossus filed another motion to strike DraftKings’ inequitable conduct affirmative defense and counterclaim. Magistrate Judge Burke held a hearing on Colossus’ motion on June 6, 2023 and subsequently issued a report and recommendation (the “Second Report and Recommendation”) that the motion be denied in part and granted in part. On August 2, 2023, Judge Noreika overruled Colossus’ objections and adopted the Second Report and Recommendation. Between November 29, 2022, and February 7, 2023, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the Colossus Patents. The PTAB granted institution of IPRs for each of the ’341 patent, ’969 patent, and the ’822 patent. The PTAB denied institution of IPR for each of the ’516 patent, ’716 patent, ’338 patent and the ’779 patent. On September 11, 2023, the Company filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute review in the IPR for the ’779 patent. On November 7, 2023, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office delegated Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in the IPR for the ’779 Patent to the Delegated Review Panel (“DRP”) to determine whether to grant rehearing. On February 21, 2024, the DRP issued a decision vacating the PTAB’s denial of institution of the IPR directed to the ’779 Patent and instructing the PTAB to reconsider institution. On May 15, 2024, the PTAB instituted the IPR directed to the ‘779 Patent. Colossus filed its Patent Owner Response on August 9, 2024. The Company filed its reply on November 8, 2024. Colossus’ filed its sur-reply on December 20, 2024. Oral argument is schedule for February 20, 2025. On March 15, 2024, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement, in which the parties agreed to, among other things: (1) dismissal with prejudice of the claims relating to the ’439 patent; ’341 patent; ’516 patent; ’716 patent; ’338 patent; ’969 patent; and the ’822 patent; and (2) DraftKings’ withdrawal of its IPRs with respect to the ’341 Patent, the ’969 Patent, and the ’822 Patent. The dismissal and withdrawal both occurred on March 18, 2024. Only the ‘779 Patent remains pending in the district court litigation. The parties have stipulated to a stay of the district court litigation pending resolution of the IPR directed to the ‘779 Patent. 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. 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 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. Securities Matters Arising From Marketplace and Related Matters On March 9, 2023, a putative class action was filed in Massachusetts federal court by an alleged purchaser of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the 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 Marketplace allegedly constitute securities that were not registered with the SEC in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law, and that Marketplace is a securities exchange that is not registered in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking rescissory damages and other relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased NFTs on Marketplace between August 11, 2021 and the present. On September 25, 2023, defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of this action. On July 2, 2024, the district court denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this case. Beginning in July 2023, the Company received subpoenas from the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeking information concerning, among other things, Marketplace and NFTs that were sold on Marketplace, and related matters, and from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents concerning, among other things, the blockchain on which NFTs that were sold on Marketplace were minted and digital assets and validator nodes associated with that blockchain, and related matters. We intend to comply with these requests. Any adverse outcome in the subpoena matters 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 the subpoena matters. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the subpoena 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 the subpoena matters could expose the Company to substantial damages, penalties and/or require alterations to the Company that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Related to Marketplace On May 31, 2023, the first of three substantially similar, putative shareholder derivative actions was filed in Nevada state court by an alleged shareholder of the Company. On October 29, 2024, the court entered a stipulated order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re DraftKings Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation and appointed lead counsel. On December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint purports to assert 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, aiding-and-abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to sell NFTs in violation of applicable law and/or operate the Company as an unregistered broker-dealer or securities exchange in violation of applicable law. The complaint also alleges that certain individuals are liable for trading in Company stock at artificially inflated prices. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorney’s fees, and other unspecified relief. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint. 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. 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. On March 26, 2024, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session (“BLS”) of the Massachusetts Superior Court. On January 29, 2024, DraftKings served its Motion to Dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims. On August 19, 2024, the court denied the motion to dismiss. 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. 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. On July 12, 2024, DraftKings removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. On August 14, 2024, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2025, the court granted DraftKings’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s DCSA claims and denied DraftKings’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The court also held that DraftKings may amend its response to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification up until February 24, 2025. On February 12, 2025, McAfee filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On December 16, 2024, DraftKings filed its opposition, and on December 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed his reply. The class certification motion remains pending. 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. Aminov On September 30, 2024, plaintiff Nerye Aminov, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 in site credits, and related advertisements were unfair or deceptive practices in violation of New York General Business Law §§ 349-350.Plaintiff also asserts claims for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class, with a New York subclass. On December 11, 2024, DraftKings removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss on February 3, 2025. That motion remains pending. 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. National Football League Players Association On August 20, 2024, the plaintiffs, National Football League Players Association and National Football League Players Incorporated, filed a complaint against DraftKings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging, among other things, that DraftKings breached its Licensing Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, payment of all purported unpaid sums due under the Agreement On November 25, 2024, DraftKings filed its partial motion to dismiss the complaint; on December 16, 2024, NFLPA filed its opposition; and on January 3, 2025, DraftKings filed its reply. On January 27, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the action until March 28, 2025 on |