XML 31 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Leases, Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Leases, Commitments and Contingencies | Leases, Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company primarily 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 our leases, we do not assume renewals in our determination of the lease term as the renewals are not deemed to be reasonably assured. Our lease agreements generally do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. As of March 31, 2023, 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 cost are as follows:
| Three months ended March 31, |  |
| 2023 |  | 2022 |  |  |  |
Operating lease cost | $ | 5,028 |  |  | $ | 4,230 |  |  |  |  |
Short term lease cost | 1,331 |  |  | 1,755 |  |  |  |  |
Variable lease cost | 1,119 |  |  | 806 |  |  |  |  |
Sublease income | (236) |  |  | (230) |  |  |  |  |
Total lease cost | $ | 7,242 |  |  | $ | 6,561 |  |  |  |  |
Supplemental cash flow and other information for the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022 related to operating leases was as follows:
| Three months ended March 31,
| 2023 |  | 2022
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: |  |  |
Operating cash flows used by operating leases | $ | 3,165 |  |  | $ | 4,283 |
Right-of-use assets obtained in exchange for new operating lease liabilities | $ | 366 |  |  | $ | 619 |
The weighted-average remaining lease term for the Company's operating leases was 8.3 years, and the weighted-average discount rate for the Company's operating leases was 6.5%, in each case as of March 31, 2023. The Company calculated the weighted-average discount rate 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:
| Years Ending December 31,
From April 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 | $ | 5,240 |
2024 | 12,252 |
2025 | 11,920 |
2026 | 11,660 |
2027 | 11,518 |
Thereafter | 40,445 |
Total undiscounted future cash flows | 93,035 |
Less: Imputed interest | (22,594) |
Present value of undiscounted future cash flows | $ | 70,441 |
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 April 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 | $ | 326,823 |
2024 | 418,437 |
2025 | 327,388 |
2026 | 188,672 |
2027 | 107,988 |
Thereafter | 247,196 |
Total | $ | 1,616,504 |
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. 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. 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. 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 Related to Allegations in the Hindenburg Report On July 2, 2021, the first of two substantially similar federal securities law putative class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers. The actions alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021. The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in a report published about the Company on June 15, 2021 by Hindenburg Research (the “Hindenburg Report”). On November 12, 2021, the court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re DraftKings Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 11, 2022. On January 10, 2023, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and final judgment was entered dismissing the action with prejudice. Beginning on July 9, 2021, the Company received subpoenas from the SEC seeking documents concerning, among other things, certain of the allegations raised in the Hindenburg Report, as well as the Company’s 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. Shareholder Derivative Litigation Related to Allegations in the Hindenburg Report On October 21, 2021, the first of five substantially similar putative shareholder derivative actions was filed in Nevada by alleged shareholders of the Company. The actions purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain current and former officers and/or members of the board of directors of the Company and DEAC. The two actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada were subsequently consolidated, and two of the actions filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County likewise were consolidated. A substantially identical fifth action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County and was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff. The same plaintiff filed a substantially identical action in Massachusetts Superior Court, which was also dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff. The Nevada actions purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste based primarily upon the allegations concerning SBTech that were contained in the Hindenburg Report. The federal court action in Nevada also contended that certain individuals are liable to the Company for any adverse judgment in the federal securities class actions described above under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The Nevada actions sought unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, equitable and injunctive relief, restitution, costs and attorney’s fees. The Nevada actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs in state court on February 27, 2023 and in federal court on March 3, 2023. 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, 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. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these matters 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 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 these 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. 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 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. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment. Among other things, Plaintiffs seeks statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. 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. Matter Related to DraftKings Marketplace 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. 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 this matter 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration