The Company leases corporate office facilities, data centers, and motor vehicles under operating lease agreements. Some of the Company’s leases include one or more options to renew. For a majority of the Company’s leases, it does not assume renewals in its determination of the lease term as the renewals are not deemed to be reasonably assured. The Company’s lease agreements generally do not contain any material residual value guarantees or material restrictive covenants. As of December 31, 2024, the Company’s lease agreements typically have terms not exceeding ten years.

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.

The lawsuit makes five claims: (1) a claim for a declaratory judgment that daily fantasy sports contests do not violate Texas law; (2) a claim of denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; (3) a claim of denial of due course of law under Article I of the Texas Constitution; (4) a claim of denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (5) a claim of denial of equal rights under Article I of the Texas Constitution. We are also seeking reimbursement of our costs and attorneys’ fees.

On April 16, 2018, the parties filed a notice of agreed non-suit without prejudice, and we re-filed our lawsuit against the Texas Attorney General in Travis County. On April 17, 2018, the Dallas County court granted the parties’ agreed non-suit without prejudice, thereby dismissing the Dallas County lawsuit without prejudice. FanDuel filed a petition in intervention on August 24, 2018, seeking essentially the same relief as the Company seeks. The parties filed an agreed motion to extend the scheduling order seeking, among other things, to change the non-jury trial date to January 27, 2026.

On July 7, 2021, Winview Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Winview”) filed suit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In the complaint, Winview alleges that the Company infringes two patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,878,243 (“the ’243 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for Equalizing Systemic Latencies in Television Reception in Connection with Games of Skill Played in Connection with Live Television Programming”, and U.S. Patent No. 10,721,543 (“the ’543 Patent”), entitled “Method of and System for Managing Client Resources and Assets for Activities on Computing Devices”. The allegations based on the ’243 Patent are directed to Sportsbook, and the allegations based on the ‘543 Patent are directed to both Sportsbook and DFS.

On July 28, 2021, Winview filed an amended complaint, in which it alleges that the Company infringes two additional patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,993,730 (“the ’730 Patent”), entitled “Methodology for Equalizing Systemic Latencies in Television Reception in Connection with Games of Skill Played in Connection with Live Television Programming”, and U.S. Patent No. 10,806,988 (“the ’988 Patent”), entitled “Method Of and System For Conducting Multiple Contests of Skill with a Single Performance”. The allegations based on the ’730 Patent are directed at Sportsbook, and the allegations based on the ’988 Patent are directed at DFS.

On November 15, 2021, Winview filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), adding as defendants DK Crown Holdings Inc. and Crown Gaming Inc., a Delaware corporation, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company. The SAC, among other allegations, repeats the allegations of the first amended complaint that the defendants infringe the ’243 Patent, the ’543 Patent, the ’730 Patent, and the ’988 Patent. On December 15, 2021, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the SAC, arguing that Winview failed to state a claim for direct infringement of the ’543 Patent and the ’730 Patent, and for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents.

On August 3, 2022, we filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the ‘243 Patent. On July 25, 2022, FanDuel filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the '543 and '730 Patents. On September 20, 2022, the court entered an order staying the pending motion to dismiss and staying all discovery pending final resolution of the petition for inter partes review through a final written decision. On February 15, 2023, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB’s final written decision. On January 29, 2024, the PTAB issued final written decisions in the IPRs, finding unpatentable all challenged claims of the ’243, ’543, and ’730 Patents. On February 16, 2024, the parties jointly requested that the case remain administratively terminated. On February 20, 2024, the court granted the request.

On March 29, 2024, Winview filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the PTAB’s final written decisions in the IPRs. On April 11, 2024, the parties jointly requested that the district court litigation remain administratively terminated until at least the Federal Circuit issues its mandate regarding Winview’s appeals. On April 15, 2024, the district court ordered the case to remain administratively terminated. On June 26, 2024, Winview and DraftKings filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of Winview’s appeal. On June 28, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Winview’s appeal dismissed.

On December 17, 2024, the court dismissed all of Winview’s claims with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,878,243 and 9,930,730. On January 6, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Winview’s direct infringement claims for U.S. Patent No. 10,721,543 as well as Winview’s claim for willful, induced, and contributory infringement for the two remaining patents-in-suit. The case remains stayed and administratively terminated pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss.

We 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.

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”).

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 December 1, 2021, Diogenes Ltd. & Colossus (IOM) Ltd. (“Colossus”), filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company’s Sportsbook product offering infringes seven of its patents. The following U.S. Patents, each entitled “Wagering apparatus, methods and systems”, are asserted against the Company’s Sportsbook product offering in the complaint: U.S. Patent No. 8,721,439 (“the ’439 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,117,341 (“the ’341 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,275,516 (“the ’516 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,424,716 (“the ’716 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,704,338 (“the ’338 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,970,969 (“the ’969 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,997,822 (“the ’822 patent”).

On January 24, 2022, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the original complaint. On February 7, 2022, Colossus filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) to, among other things, assert one additional patent against the Company, U.S. Patent No. 11,200,779 (“the ’779 patent”). The patents asserted by Colossus are collectively referred to as the “Colossus Patents.”

The Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on February 22, 2022. On July 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a report and recommendation (the “Report and Recommendation”) that the motion to dismiss be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. On August 26, 2022, District Court Judge Noreika adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke regarding the motion to dismiss. On December 27, 2022, the Company filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, including certain affirmative defenses. On January 17, 2023, Colossus filed a motion to strike the affirmative defense of unenforceability from the Company’s Answer. On February 7, 2023, the Company filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims to the Amended Complaint., and also filed a response to Colossus’ motion to strike. On February 28, 2023, Colossus filed another motion to strike DraftKings’ inequitable conduct affirmative defense and counterclaim. Magistrate Judge Burke held a hearing on Colossus’ motion on June 6, 2023 and subsequently issued a report and recommendation (the “Second Report and Recommendation”) that the motion be denied in part and granted in part. On August 2, 2023, Judge Noreika overruled Colossus’ objections and adopted the Second Report and Recommendation.

Between November 29, 2022, and February 7, 2023, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the Colossus Patents. The PTAB granted institution of IPRs for each of the ’341 patent, ’969 patent, and the ’822 patent. The PTAB denied institution of IPR for each of the ’516 patent, ’716 patent, ’338 patent and the ’779 patent. On September 11, 2023, the Company filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute review in the IPR for the ’779 patent. On November 7, 2023, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office delegated Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in the IPR for the ’779 Patent to the Delegated Review Panel (“DRP”) to determine whether to grant rehearing. On February 21, 2024, the DRP issued a decision vacating the PTAB’s denial of institution of the IPR directed to the ’779 Patent and instructing the PTAB to reconsider institution. On May 15, 2024, the PTAB instituted the IPR directed to the ‘779 Patent. Colossus filed its Patent Owner Response on August 9, 2024. The Company filed its reply on November 8, 2024. Colossus’ filed its sur-reply on December 20, 2024. Oral argument is schedule for February 20, 2025.

On March 15, 2024, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement, in which the parties agreed to, among other things: (1) dismissal with prejudice of the claims relating to the ’439 patent; ’341 patent; ’516 patent; ’716 patent; ’338 patent; ’969 patent; and the ’822 patent; and (2) DraftKings’ withdrawal of its IPRs with respect to the ’341 Patent, the ’969 Patent, and the ’822 Patent. The dismissal and withdrawal both occurred on March 18, 2024. Only the ‘779 Patent remains pending in the district court litigation. The parties have stipulated to a stay of the district court litigation pending resolution of the IPR directed to the ‘779 Patent.

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 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.

On March 9, 2023, a putative class action was filed in Massachusetts federal court by an alleged purchaser of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the Marketplace. The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal and state securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that, among other things, the NFTs that are sold and traded on Marketplace allegedly constitute securities that were not registered with the SEC in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law, and that Marketplace is a securities exchange that is not registered in accordance with federal and Massachusetts law. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking rescissory damages and other relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased NFTs on Marketplace between August 11, 2021 and the present. On September 25, 2023, defendants

Beginning in July 2023, the Company received subpoenas from the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeking information concerning, among other things, Marketplace and NFTs that were sold on Marketplace, and related matters, and from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents concerning, among other things, the blockchain on which NFTs that were sold on Marketplace were minted and digital assets and validator nodes associated with that blockchain, and related matters. We intend to comply with these requests.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the subpoena matters or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Any adverse outcome in the subpoena matters could expose the Company to substantial damages, penalties and/or require alterations to the Company that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

On May 31, 2023, the first of three substantially similar, putative shareholder derivative actions was filed in Nevada state court by an alleged shareholder of the Company. On October 29, 2024, the court entered a stipulated order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re DraftKings Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation and appointed lead counsel. On December 23, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain senior officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding-and-abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to sell NFTs in violation of applicable law and/or operate the Company as an unregistered broker-dealer or securities exchange in violation of applicable law. The complaint also alleges that certain individuals are liable for trading in Company stock at artificially inflated prices. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorney’s fees, and other unspecified relief. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaint.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. Because this action alleges claims on behalf of the Company and purports to seek a judgment in favor of the Company, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of the proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

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 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.

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.

On September 30, 2024, plaintiff Nerye Aminov, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to 1,000 in site credits, and related advertisements were unfair or deceptive practices in violation of New York General Business Law §§ 349-350.Plaintiff also asserts claims for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class, with a New York subclass.

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.

On August 20, 2024, the plaintiffs, National Football League Players Association and National Football League Players Incorporated, filed a complaint against DraftKings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging, among other things, that DraftKings breached its Licensing Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, payment of all purported unpaid sums due under the Agreement On November 25,

2024, DraftKings filed its partial motion to dismiss the complaint; on December 16, 2024, NFLPA filed its opposition; and on January 3, 2025, DraftKings filed its reply. On January 27, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the action until March 28, 2025 on the basis that the parties had reached a non-binding settlement in principle, subject to the mutual execution of a definitive settlement agreement. On January 28, 2025, the court ordered a dismissal of the action without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of the order if the settlement is not consummated. We have established an accrual for this matter as of December 31, 2024.

On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff Jeffrey Wan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) through the use of pixels and other tracking technologies on the Company’s website and mobile application in connection with the Company’s online casino games. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory, punitive and statutory damages, and declaratory relief.

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.

On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff Eric Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc. and DK Player Reserve LLC in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that DraftKings has interfered or prevented customers from withdrawing balances from closed accounts. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. Plaintiff seeks a nationwide class of (i) all persons whose DraftKings’ accounts were terminated by DraftKings and who were denied access to their account balances by DraftKings; and (ii) a Texas subclass of all persons in Texas whose DraftKings accounts were terminated by DraftKings and who were denied access to their account balances by DraftKings.

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.

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. Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, intentional misrepresentation, negligence, 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 of all of their initial deposit (with subclasses for New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania,

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.

On January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs James Beyer and Wyatt Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action complaint against DraftKings Inc. and Crown KY Gaming LLC in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky. 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 Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, 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 a Kentucky subclass); (ii) anyone who opened an account and deposited money in response to the new customer 1,000 site credit promotion (with a Kentucky subclass); and (iii) anyone who opened an account and entered free promotions on DraftKings’ platform before reaching their legal gaming age and then placed paid bets on DraftKings after reaching the legal gaming age (with a Kentucky subclass). Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that DraftKings has breached agreements with Apple and Google relating to their respective app stores.

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

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 U.S. 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.

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.

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.