DraftKings Closed an Investigator’s Account. Its New York Terms Claim It Can Do That Anytime.

ProPublica reported on November 14 that DraftKings closed reporter Jake Pearson’s betting account on October 27, the same day he asked the company about growing regulatory scrutiny of his investigation. The closure notice gave no reason. DraftKings’ public New York terms say the company may close an account “at any time.”

Pearson wrote that he sent questions that morning about regulators and lawmakers responding to his September test of the platform. An unsigned closure notice arrived that evening; DraftKings sent its formal response to the regulatory questions two hours later. The sequence is documented. It does not establish that the reporting caused the closure.

The operator’s New York terms, last updated June 1, 2023, reserve power to suspend or close an account at any time. The same page says players can request account statements by email and sets a complaint process for mishandled funds. The published terms do not promise an explanation whenever the company ends access.

An account can contain transaction history relevant to examining how a sportsbook treats a customer. Closing app access does not establish that those records were erased or unavailable: DraftKings’ public New York terms say users may request account statements by email. Pearson reported that DraftKings returned his remaining 94 cents, while the closure notice gave no reason. The public record does not show which policy, risk or compliance determination—if any—DraftKings applied.

Pearson’s September test was designed with professional bettors, recovering addicts and addiction specialists. He reported that after deliberately escalating risky behavior, losing roughly $6,000 in three weeks and chasing losses, DraftKings promoted him into its VIP program. DraftKings said its responsible-gaming system worked because it sent about 30 safety messages, and cautioned against generalizing from one user.

The episode landed amid real regulatory scrutiny. Louisiana’s gaming board gave DraftKings a temporary four-month permit while examining issues raised by reporting and other paperwork concerns. The board’s chair stressed that news reports were not findings of regulatory violations.

Ohio regulators separately proposed barring direct marketing for 48 hours after a bettor enables or changes a responsible-gambling tool. Their one-page summary describes a proposed amendment, not a final rule, and it regulates marketing rather than account-closure explanations.

DraftKings has said it does not market based on indicators of potential problem gambling, does not use AI to target losing gamblers, and routinely speaks with regulators. A former problem-gambling council director also warned that Ohio’s proposal could discourage bettors from using voluntary limits by treating those tools as a distress signal.

The strongest supported accountability question is narrower than retaliation: when a regulated operator can end access without explaining why, what records and reasons should it provide so regulators can test whether the closure was an ordinary safety, risk or compliance decision? In Pearson’s case, the timing is striking; the available record does not answer why the account was closed.