Sure. That makes sense if you think the situations are analogous. It wouldn’t matter if the store’s rules say that scanner errors don’t count. But is this an advertised price and what if the advertised price is a mistake?
If I understand the reason for the law correctly, it’s to avoid bait and switch. Pricing errors are not legally bait and switch.
It sounds similar to the standard contra proferentum rule of contractual interpretation: where there is unequal bargaining power and the party with greater power drafts the contract, ambiguities in the contract are resolved in favour of the party who didn’t draft the contract, just had to accept it as drafted.
Here, DK has complete control over the betting system, and a lot more resources than the average better, who has no input at all into the system design. If they don’t catch the glitches in their system, they’re on the hook for it.
Imagine this scenario. You go to a high end baseball card trading store. You find a collectible that you’re pretty sure is wildly underpriced. You can’t be certain however (remember, he could have easily lost this bet - the ALCS could have been done in 4, Lukes could have gotten hurt, etc). You bring it to the counter and buy it, the cashier, acting as the store’s agent, takes your money and gives you the card.
It turns out you were right - you post the card online and it sells for 90x what you paid for it. The original store finds out and tries to sue you to recover most of that money. Were you a thief? Were you an asshole? The store had every opportunity to correctly price the card, but they didn’t - it turns out that the person who priced it for the store was looking at the wrong column in the collectible pricing guide. IMHO (and the law AFAIK), that’s too bad for them - you were under no obligation to inform the of the possible error or to share any of the profits with them.
They are equivalent in Massachusetts. The store has to honor the lower price of the scan or the shelf tag regardless of whether it was an error on the store’s part or not.
If you know or should have known the owner fucked up, you’re being a dick. What if it was a yard sale and a regular person fucked up?
I’m no expert on MA law obviously so I agree that it was the legally correct decision. Still a dick move
I think the level of dickery is dependent on the circumstances. Buying a $2,000 baseball card for $10 from a widow who is selling off her dead’s husbands belongings so she can stay in the house? Dickery. Buying it from a chain of sports collectible stores? Not dickery.
In most commercial transactions, the law doesn’t care about dickery. 
In most commercial transactions, I don’t care about the law. I care about ethics which in nearly every case happens to align with the law.
Clearly we all draw the line at different places. I see no reason to fuck over a chain of sports card shops. They never did anything bad to me and aren’t inherently unethical. Admittedly DK is inherently unethical though.
You know who buys $900 baseball cards for $10 from widows who don’t know about the value of their deceased husband’s collection?
Ha! point well made.
Either we decide this case based on the law, or we decide it based on ethics. If we decide based on the law, DraftKings is out close to a million dollars. But if we decide it based on ethics, then DraftKings is out their entire business. A sports gambling company has no business ever appealing to ethics.
It’s a good thing then that they didn’t appeal to ethics, nor did anyone claim that the case should be decided on ethics and that everyone here agrees that DK are scum and the greater evil.
In what way?
Is every casino in Vegas (or everywhere else these days) unethical? Or is it only sports books? Or just online sports books?
I would posit that the customer in this case could be considered unethical. He knew that this bet wasn’t ‘right’, which is why he quickly deposited and bet over $12k.
All of them equally. They ruin lives and use psychological tricks to entice people to bet more and make the odds look attractive. The whole industry is gross.
I feel like sports betting is worse, because it will encourage cheating and corruption in sports, which ruins it for everyone.
Good point. I rarely watch professional sports these days since I cut the cord in 2017. I did watch a couple of NFL games yesterday and the amount of advertising for betting sites was obscene. A lot of the commentary in sports reporting is about odds and the occasional bettor who won a crazy parlay or how a last minute field goal made the over. Lots of people have to be on the take.
Yep, that’s what I suggested a few posts before. In my business (life insurance, annuities, etc.), ambiguities were resolved in favor of the contract holder, not the issuer. The issuer had their chance to remove ambiguities when they drafted the docs.
Can you give some examples? Or are you just speculating?
‘On the take’ implies illegal profiting or corruption. Not sure I see that in sports betting.
Of course I’m speculating. Do you really think there’s no corruption? There have been point shaving in the past for example. Do you think the sports gambling industry is completely clean?