XML 48 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.4

Leases, Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
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, 2025, 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:
| Year Ended December 31,
| 2025 |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Operating lease cost | $ | 16,295 |  |  | $ | 20,206 |  |  | $ | 19,175 |
Short term lease cost | 2,831 |  |  | 774 |  |  | 2,616 |
Variable lease cost | 4,103 |  |  | 4,747 |  |  | 4,644 |
Sublease income | — |  |  | — |  |  | (704) |
Total lease cost | $ | 23,229 |  |  | $ | 25,727 |  |  | $ | 25,731 |
Supplemental cash flow and other information for 2025, 2024 and 2023 related to operating leases was as follows:
| Year Ended December 31,
| 2025 |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities: |  |  |  |  |
Operating cash flows from operating leases | $ | 15,923 |  |  | $ | 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,
| 2025 |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years) | 5.5 |  | 6.4 |  | 7.3
Weighted-average discount rate | 6.5 | % |  | 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,
2026 | $ | 15,589 |
2027 | 9,293 |
2028 | 9,368 |
2029 | 9,403 |
2030 | 9,135 |
Thereafter | 14,115 |
Total undiscounted future cash flows | 66,903 |
Less: Imputed interest | 12,717 |
Present value of undiscounted future cash flows | $ | 54,186 |
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,
2026 | $ | 527,422 |
2027 | 572,488 |
2028 | 485,085 |
2029 | 422,385 |
2030 | 173,183 |
Thereafter | 91,445 |
Total | $ | 2,272,008 |
The above commitments include $1.3 billion of expected contractual obligations over the next five years as part of multi-year content integration agreements signed with three media distribution counterparties in the third quarter of 2025. Surety Bonds As of December 31, 2025, the Company has been issued $500.0 million in surety bonds at a weighted average annual premium cost of 0.5% 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 18, 2027. 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 United States 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 a 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 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“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. On July 11, 2025, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. On August 11, 2025, WinView filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of different claims of the ’543 and ’988 Patents, and alleging infringement by DK Sportsbook, DFS, DK Casino, Pick6, and DK Horse. On September 26, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss WinView’s direct infringement claims for the ’543 Patent and WinView’s claim for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for the two remaining patents-in-suit. 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 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 a 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 a 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. On May 9, 2025, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding all claims of the ’779 Patent that were asserted in the litigation unpatentable. On July 7, 2025, Colossus filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the PTAB’s final written decision in the IPR directed to the ’779 Patent. On October 17, 2025, Colossus filed its opening brief in the appeal, and on January 26, 2026, the Company filed its responsive brief in the appeal. 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 brought 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 sought 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. On September 9, 2025, DraftKings and FanDuel jointly moved to dismiss Steiner’s amended complaint. On November 19, 2025, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. 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 amended complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain senior officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to sell NFTs in violation of applicable law. The amended complaint also alleges that certain individuals are liable for trading in Company stock based on non-public information about its NFT business. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on the Company's behalf, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, costs and attorney’s fees, and other unspecified relief. On February 21, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 12, 2025, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the merits pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). The court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs’ first, second, and fifth causes of action—asserting breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, and insider trading—under Rule 12(b)(5). The court denied without prejudice the defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(5) as to the plaintiffs’ third and fourth causes of action—alleging the sale of unregistered securities and transacting business as an unlicensed broker-dealer. The court deferred consideration of the defendants’ separate motion to dismiss for failure to plead demand futility under Rule 23.1, and granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of entry of the order. After plaintiffs declined to replead the previously dismissed claims, on November 17, 2025, the defendants renewed their motion to dismiss for failure to plead demand futility under Rule 23.1. On February 3, 2026, the court issued an oral ruling, to be confirmed in a subsequent written order, dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice. 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 filed a motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims. On August 19, 2024, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On October 10, 2025, DraftKings served its motion for summary judgment, which 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. 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 May 9, 2025, the court denied the motion to amend. On November 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, and on June 11, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification. On December 9, 2025, the Court granted the class certification motion. On October 21, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 17, 2025, DraftKings’ filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and its own summary judgment motion. Both motions remain 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. Youngs On January 7, 2025, plaintiff Matthew Youngs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc., Crown NJ Gaming Inc. dba DraftKings, DGMB Casino LLC and Resorts Atlantic City in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey. Among other things, plaintiff alleges that the Company’s “risk-free” and “no sweat” promotions, and the promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 site credits as a sportsbook deposit match, as well as promotions that offered site credits in connection with a casino deposit match, were unfair, unconscionable, and misleading. The plaintiff's complaint, as amended, asserts claims for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of anyone who participated in the casino deposit match promotion and lost part or all of their initial deposit (with subclasses for New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and West Virginia). Plaintiff also seeks a statewide class of (i) anyone in New Jersey who allegedly opted into the “risk free” or “no sweat” promotion and lost a bet; and (ii) anyone in New Jersey who opened an account and deposited money while in New Jersey in response to the 1,000 new customer sportsbook deposit match promotion. On March 27, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response to the motion to dismiss, on April 17, 2025, plaintiff Matthew Youngs and a second plaintiff (Jason Lombardozzi), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a first amended purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown NJ Gaming Inc. dba DraftKings. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs removed DGMB Casino and Resorts Atlantic as defendants and removed claims of negligence. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs added new CFA claims alleging that (i) the casino deposit match was unconscionable because it inculcated gaming addiction and (ii) the Company engaged in unconscionable conduct by targeting customers with casino deposit match promotions after such customers had become addicted to gaming. The court terminated the Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot due to the plaintiffs filing an amended complaint. On May 22, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2025, the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice regarding the unjust enrichment claim and dismissing without prejudice all other claims. On August 13, 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint: dismissing Lombardozzi as a plaintiff and added a new plaintiff (Charles Thompson); dismissing their CFA claims alleging that the casino deposit match promotions allegedly inculcated gaming or were otherwise unconscionable; and added two new intentional misrepresentation claims related to the “risk free” and “no sweat promotions,” and new customer sportsbook deposit match promotion. Plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes of persons who opted into each of the promotions at issue, as well as a New Jersey subclass. On September 10, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On November 19, 2025, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing plaintiffs’ CFA and common law fraud claims as to the “risk free” promotion to proceed, as well as an equitable fraud claim concerning the casino deposit match promotion. DraftKings filed its answer to the second amended complaint on December 17, 2025 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. James Beyer, Collin Smothers, Mateen Zafer and Corey Davis On January 8, 2025, plaintiffs James Beyer, Collin Smothers, Mateen Zafer and Corey Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc., Crown IL Gaming LLC dba DraftKings, Northside Crown Gaming LLC, and Casino Queen Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Law Division. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the Company’s “risk-free” and “no sweat” promotions, and the promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 site credits as a deposit match, were unfair and misleading. Plaintiffs also allege that DraftKings targets underage users with its advertising and by allowing them to participate in daily fantasy sports contests in order to inculcate gaming habits. Plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of (i) anyone who opted into a DraftKings promotion advertising a “risk-free” or “no sweat” bet and lost their bet (with an Illinois subclass); (ii) anyone who opened an account and deposited money in response to the new customer 1,000 site credit promotion (with an Illinois subclass); and (iii) anyone who opened an account and entered free promotions on DraftKings’ platform before turning twenty-one years old and then placed paid bets on DraftKings after turning twenty-one years old (with an Illinois subclass). On February 7, 2025, DraftKings removed the complaint to the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On April 4, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss. In response, on May 9, 2025, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. On June 12, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on July 9, 2025, and DraftKings’ filed its reply on July 28, 2025. The motion remains pending. On August 8, 2025, the court ordered the parties to provide a supplemental brief setting forth the basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act in light of the mandatory “local controversy exception” contained in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(4)(A). On November 20, 2025, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. On November 25, 2025, the Court denied DraftKings’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On December 23, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on the issue of whether a mobile app, or its specific features (e.g., the app interface), can be a “product” for purposes of Illinois product liability law. The motion to certify 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. Clara De Leon and Eric Mirsberger Jr. On January 22, 2025, plaintiffs Clara De Leon and Eric Mirsberger Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint (the “Original Complaint”) against DraftKings Inc. and Crown NY Gaming Inc. in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the Company’s “risk-free” and “no sweat” promotions, and the promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 site credits as a deposit match, were unfair and misleading. Plaintiffs also allege that DraftKings targets players with gaming addiction issues, including by pairing players who bet large amounts of money with VIP hosts who, plaintiffs allege, are trained to encourage customers to place frequent and large bets. Plaintiffs brings claims for violation of the New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek a nationwide class of (i) anyone who allegedly opted into the “risk free” or “no sweat” promotion and lost a bet (with a New York subclass); (ii) anyone who allegedly opened an account and deposited money in response to the new customer 1,000 site credit promotion (with a New York subclass); and (iii) anyone who was allegedly enticed by DraftKings’ VIP hosts to bet beyond their means (with a New York subclass). Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that DraftKings has breached agreements with Apple and Google relating to their respective app stores. On April 8, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss. On April 9, 2025, the court ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, if any, and on May 16, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended putative class action complaint on behalf of Clara De Leon, Eric Mirsberger Jr., Joseph Mitchell, and Edward Mendez (the “First Amended Complaint”). In addition to the claims and theories set forth in the Original Complaint, the First Amended Complaint asserts additional causes of action, including alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and product liability claims based on theories of design defect and failure to warn. On June 20, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss on December 11, 2025, and entered judgment on February 2, 2026. 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. Winview II On February 10, 2025, Winview IP Holdings, LLC (“Winview IP”) filed suit against DraftKings Inc., a Nevada corporation, DK Crown Holdings Inc., Crown Gaming Inc., SBTech US Inc., and SBTech (Global) Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, Winview IP alleges that the Defendants infringe nine patents: U.S. Patent No. 11,185,770 (“the ’770 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for equalizing systemic latencies in television reception in connection with games of skill played in connection with live television programming,” U.S. Patent No. 11,235,237 (“the ’237 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for equalizing systemic latencies in television reception in connection with games of skill played in connection with live television programming,” U.S. Patent No. 11,338,189 (“the ’189 Patent”), entitled “Method of and system for conducting multiple contests of skill with a single performance,” U.S. Patent No. 11,451,883 (“the ’883 Patent”), entitled “Method of and system for managing client resources and assets for activities on computing devices,” U.S. Patent No. 11,678,020 (“the ’020 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for equalizing systemic latencies in television reception in connection with games of skill played in connection with live television programming,” U.S. Patent No. 11,736,771 (“the ’771 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for equalizing systemic latencies in television reception in connection with games of skill played in connection with live television programming,” U.S. Patent No. 11,918,880 (“the ’880 Patent”), entitled “Method of and system for conducting multiple contests of skill with a single performance,” U.S. Patent No. 11,951,402 (“the ’402 Patent”), entitled “Method of and system for conducting multiple contests of skill with a single performance,” and U.S. Patent No. 12,005,349 (“the ’349 Patent”), entitled “Synchronized gaming and programming.” The allegations based on: the ’770 Patent are directed to DK Sportsbook, DK Casino, and DK Horse; the ’237 Patent are directed to DK Sportsbook and DK Horse; the ’189 Patent are directed to DFS and Pick6; the ’883 Patent are directed to DK Sportsbook, DK Horse, DK Casino, DFS, and Pick6; the ’020 Patent are directed to DK Sportsbook, DK Horse, and DK Casino; the ’771 Patent are directed to DK Sportsbook, DK Horse, and DK Casino; the ’880 Patent are directed to DFS and Pick6; the ’402 Patent are directed to DFS and Pick6; and the ’349 Patent are directed to DK Sportsbook, DK Horse, and DK Casino. On August 18, 2025, DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss WinView’s direct infringement claims of the ’883 patent, all claims against DK Casino and DK Horse, as well as WinView’s claims for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for all nine patents-in-suit. On January 16, 2026, DraftKings filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the PTAB challenging the validity of the ’883 Patent and the ’189 Patent. On January 20, 2026, DraftKings informed the District Court of the filing of the IPR petitions, and on January 21, 2026, the Court entered an order staying DraftKings’ motion to dismiss pending the final resolution of the IPRs through final written decision of the PTAB. 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. DC Gambling Recovery LLC v. Caesars et al. On February 28, 2025, DC Gambling Recovery LLC filed a lawsuit against DraftKings, Caesars, FanDuel, BetMGM, and Fanatics in state court in the District of Columbia. On April 4, 2025, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Statute of Anne (D.C. Code § 16-1702), a statute which purportedly allows an individual to recover their betting losses greater than twenty-five dollars from each sportsbook, and should such party fail to sue within three months, the statute purportedly authorizes any person to file suit against the sportsbook to recover the losses (including treble damages). Plaintiff also alleges that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision striking down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) does not apply to the District of Columbia and, therefore, the Sports Wagering Lottery Amendment Act (“SWLAA”), a 2019 law that legalized sports betting in the District of Columbia, is without any legal force or effect. Plaintiff also alleges that the Statute of Anne permits recovery of betting losses greater than twenty-five dollars even if the SWLAA has legal force or effect. Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of all individuals within the District of Columbia that (i) have lost more than $25 at any single time or sitting by sports betting with DraftKings and (ii) not sued to recover those losses within three months of payment to DraftKings. On May 5, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion remains pending. On May 14, 2025, the court granted the District of Columbia’s motion to intervene. On June 16, 2025, plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss; on June 23, 2025, the District of Columbia filed a brief in support of Defendants motion to dismiss; on July 7, 2025, DraftKings filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss and plaintiff filed its response to the District of Columbia’s brief; and on July 14, 2025, the District of Columbia filed its reply. On September 24, 2025, the District of Columbia notified the court that the D.C. Council had amended D.C. Code § 16-1702 to clarify that it does not apply to sports betting authorized under the SWLAA, and that the amendment would become permanent after review by Congress. On September 29, 2025, plaintiff filed a response arguing that the amendment violated PASPA. The court heard argument on the motions to dismiss on January 9, 2026, and the 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. City of Baltimore On April 3, 2025, the City of Baltimore filed a lawsuit against DraftKings and FanDuel seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief under Baltimore City Code Art. 2, Section 4. The City alleges that DraftKings violated Baltimore City Code Art. 2, section 4 by committing unfair, abusive and deceptive trade practices by allegedly (i) using data to allegedly target vulnerable Baltimore users; (ii) using misleading promotions such as “bonus bets” or “no-sweat bets;” (iii) concealing or misrepresenting the terms and conditions of those promotions; (iv) using data to identify Baltimore users with an alleged gaming disorder and then directing promotions at them; (v) directing messages with misleading urgency to those who allegedly may have gaming disorders; (vi) using the VIP program to allegedly exploit people with alleged gaming disorders; (vii) offering escalating rewards through its VIP program to target alleged users with gaming disorders; and (viii) failing to implement responsible gaming measures. The City of Baltimore seeks injunctive relief and statutory penalties for each violation of Baltimore City Code Art. 2, section 4. On May 7, 2025, the defendants removed the lawsuit from state court to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Northern Division). On June 6, 2025, the City filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On November 10, 2025, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand. On November 12, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the remand order, and on November 13, 2025, the state court stayed and administratively closed the case, subject to reopening once the appeal has been adjudicated. On January 28, 2026, the defendants filed their opening appellate brief. The appeal 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. Macek I On April 18, 2025, plaintiffs Kenneth Macek, Matthew Harner, Avi Setton, Lionel Alicea, and Robert Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc., Crown PA Gaming Inc. dba DraftKings, and Golden Nugget Online Gaming LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the Company’s “risk-free” and “no sweat” promotions, and the promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 site credits as a sportsbook deposit match, as well as promotions that offered site credits in connection with a casino deposit match, were unfair, unconscionable, and misleading (collectively, the “Promotions Claims”). Plaintiffs also allege that DraftKings targets players with gaming addiction issues, including by assigning certain players with VIP hosts. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, failure to warn, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class relating to the Promotions Claims, of: (i) anyone who participated in the casino deposit match promotion and lost part or all of their initial deposit (with a Pennsylvania subclass); (ii) anyone who allegedly opted into the “risk free” or “no sweat” promotion (with a Pennsylvania subclass); and (iii) anyone who allegedly deposited money in response to the 1,000 new customer sportsbook deposit match promotion (with a Pennsylvania subclass). Plaintiffs also seek to certify a class relating to alleged addiction claims, of (i) anyone who developed or displayed problem gaming behavior and was allegedly targeted by DraftKings’ VIP hosts or promotions or otherwise induced to game or continue to game (with a Pennsylvania subclass); and (ii) anyone who was allegedly permitted to continue gaming after self-excluding or who asked DraftKings to suspend or close their account (with a Pennsylvania subclass). On June 24, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In response, on July 15, 2025, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”), removing plaintiff Walker and adding new plaintiffs Shane Spencer and Rangaraj Sadagopan. The First Amended Complaint removed all of the allegations, purported classes, and causes of actions relating to the Promotions Claims. The First Amended Complaint only alleges claims and causes of action relating to alleged addiction matters, as follows: negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and strict and negligent products liability. The First Amended Complaint also contains individual claims for breach of contract and conversion based on the closure of plaintiff Setton’s account. In the First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of (i) anyone who developed or displayed problem gaming behavior and was allegedly targeted by DraftKings’ VIP hosts or otherwise induced to game or continue to game (with a Pennsylvania subclass); (ii) anyone who was allegedly permitted to continue gaming after asking DraftKings to suspend or close their account (with a Pennsylvania subclass); and (iii) anyone who was exposed to the allegedly dangerous design of features of DraftKings’ app and could not control their compulsive gaming (with a Pennsylvania subclass). On July 29, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss. On August 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed their response, and on August 19, 2025, DraftKings filed its reply. The 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. Macek II On July 15, 2025 plaintiffs Kenneth Macek, Matthew Harner, Avi Setton, Lionel Alicea, and Robert Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc., Crown PA Gaming Inc. dba DraftKings, and Golden Nugget Online Gaming LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the Company’s “risk-free” and “no sweat” promotions, and the promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 site credits as a sportsbook deposit match, as well as promotions that offered site credits in connection with a casino deposit match, were unfair, unconscionable, and misleading. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of (i) anyone who participated in DraftKings or Golden Nugget’s casino deposit match promotion and lost part or all of their initial deposit (with a Pennsylvania subclass); (ii) anyone who allegedly opted into DraftKings’ “risk free” or “no sweat” promotion and lost their bet (with a Pennsylvania subclass); and (iii) anyone who allegedly deposited money in response to DraftKings’ $1,000 new customer sportsbook deposit match promotion (with a Pennsylvania subclass). Plaintiffs bring consumer protection, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims. On September 16, 2025, DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2025, plaintiffs filed their response, in which they withdrew two of their three fraud claims and their request for injunctive relief. On October 7, 2025, DraftKings filed its reply. The motion to dismiss remains pending. Also on September 16, 2025, DraftKings filed a motion to consolidate Macek I and Macek II for all purposes. On September 23, 2025, plaintiffs filed their response, and on September 30, 2025, DraftKings filed its reply. The motion to consolidate also 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. Moore (now Zhen v. DraftKings Inc.) On June 1, 2025, plaintiffs Brandon Moore, Zhicheng Zhen, and Jonathan Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Doe defendants in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that DraftKings has been operating illegal online gambling platforms in California through its “Daily Fantasy Sports” and “Pick6” contests in violation of California law. Plaintiffs claim that these contests amount to unlawful lotteries, games of chance, or sports betting and that DraftKings falsely represents these services as lawful in California, including through misleading public statements and platform disclosures. Plaintiffs bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and seek, among other things, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent a purported class of all California residents who allegedly placed a bet or wager on DraftKings’ alleged Daily Fantasy Sports and Pick6 gambling websites while physically located in California. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice Regarding Legal Opinion Issued By The California Attorney General enclosing an opinion from the California Attorney General (Opinion No. 23-1001) in which the California Attorney General opined that “California law prohibits the operation of daily fantasy sports games with players physically located within California.” On July 14, 2025, two other actions pending in the Northern District of California were referred sua sponte by the court to the Judge assigned to Moore for determination on whether such actions should be related under Civil Local Rule 3-12(e) (Beltran v. FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-5586-JSC; Head v. Underdog Sports, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-5542-JST). On July 16, the court referred sua sponte a third pending action for the same determination (Franks v. Prize Picks, Case No. 25-cv-4916-JD). On July 24, 2025, the court assigned to Moore held that those three actions were related to Moore and assigned all three cases to that court. On August 1, 2025, plaintiff Moore voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice; and upon motion by the plaintiff, the Court ordered that the case is now entitled Zhen v. DraftKings. On August 11, 2025, DraftKings filed its motion to dismiss, and on December 19, 2025, the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. On January 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint that adds four new defendants: Crown Gaming, Inc. and three individuals (Jason Robins, Matthew Kalish, and Paul Liberman), in addition to DraftKings. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint asserts nine causes of action arising from DraftKings’ alleged operation and marketing of its Daily Fantasy Sports and Pick6 offerings to users located in California. Plaintiffs bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and they added federal civil RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d) (with civil remedies under § 1964(c)) asserted both against the three individual defendants and separately against all defendants (DraftKings Inc., Crown Gaming, Inc., and those individuals). Plaintiffs also assert a gambling-loss recovery claim based on Cal. Civ. Code § 22.2 and the “Statute of Anne,” a claim under Cal. Penal Code § 496 (receipt of stolen property), and a claim for declaratory relief (28 U.S.C. § 2201). Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution and other equitable relief, and, as pleaded, damages. DraftKings’ current deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint is February 19, 2026, and the other defendants’ deadline to respond is March 30, 2026. 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. Micro-Gaming On May 9, 2025, Micro-Gaming Ventures, LLC (“Micro-Gaming”) filed suit against DraftKings Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, Micro-Gaming alleges that the Company infringes five patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,545,311 (“the ’311 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods for enabling remote device users to wager on micro events of games in a data network accessible gaming environment”; (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,632,392 (“the ’392 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods for enabling remote device users to wager on micro events of games in a data network accessible gaming environment”; (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,734,231 (“the ’231 patent”), entitled “Systems and methods for enabling remote device users to wager on micro events of games in a data network accessible gaming environment”; (4) U.S. Patent No. 11,783,679 (“the ’679 patent”), entitled “Location-based wagering via remote devices”; and (5) U.S. Patent No. 12,266,244 (“the ’244 patent”), entitled “Location-based wagering via remote devices” (collectively, the “Micro-Gaming Patents”). The allegations for all of the Micro-Gaming Patents are directed to the “DraftKings Sportsbook.” On August 8, 2025, the Company filed its motion to dismiss. Micro-Gaming filed its brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on September 2, 2025, and the Company filed its reply brief on September 15, 2025. The motion remains pending. 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. Other Litigation In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our 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. Certain examinations have progressed further in the administrative process. The Company continues to dispute the assessments and is actively pursuing administrative remedies and intends to vigorously defend its positions. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any. The final resolution of these audits, and any related proceedings, may differ from the amounts recorded in these consolidated financial statements and may materially affect the Company’s results of operations 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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration