Landmark Ruling Challenges iGaming Terms & Conditions
A gardener from Gloucestershire has won her High Court battle against betting giant Paddy Power, securing the full £1.097 million “Monster Jackpot” she was initially shown on screen while playing the Wild Hatter slot game.
The Disputed Win
In October 2020, Corinne Pearl Durber was playing the Wild Hatter slot on her iPad when she triggered the Jackpot Game Round. After spinning the jackpot wheel, her screen displayed she had won the “Monster Jackpot” worth over £1 million. However, Paddy Power only paid her £20,265.14, claiming she had actually won the smaller “Daily Jackpot.”
The company attributed the discrepancy to a “software error” that incorrectly displayed the result. Customer service representatives explained that their Random Number Generator (RNG) had determined she won the smaller prize, citing their Terms & Conditions clause that server records take precedence over screen displays.
The Court’s Decision
Mr. Justice Ritchie granted summary judgment in Durber’s favor without requiring a full trial. In his 62-page ruling, he emphasized that the concept of “what you see is what you get” was central to gambling games:
“Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct. The same expectation probably applies when customers go into a physical casino and play roulette.”
The judge determined that human error in mapping the software had affected 14 plays over 48 days, creating the discrepancy between the RNG result and what was displayed on screen.
Industry Implications
This groundbreaking ruling indicates that operators might no longer depend on extensive Terms & Conditions in comparable disputes.
A spokesperson said: “Forfeiting bonus winnings or refusing a payout because of a technical glitch and then pointing to a clause buried deep in the operator’s terms and conditions essentially puts the onus back on the player and …. that equates to poor customer service.”
Aftermath
A relieved Durber questioned why she had to endure “legal torment” instead of being paid immediately:
“What’s the point in betting if betting companies like Paddy Power won’t pay-up when someone wins a big jackpot?”
Flutter UKI, Paddy Power’s parent company, expressed regret over the case and stated they were reviewing the judgment, noting that they “pride ourselves on fairness” and regularly pay out winners, including a £5.7 million jackpot last year.
