Paddy Power Ordered To Pay £1m Jackpot

The UK High Court has ruled that Paddy Power must pay £1,076,867.57 to Gloucestershire gardener Corrinne Durber following a dispute over online slot winnings. The case centred on Durber's October 2020 win while playing "Wild Hatter," where she was shown a "Monster Jackpot" notification but was subsequently offered only £20,265.14 by the company.

Paddy Power, owned by PPB Entertainment Limited, claimed that a "mapping error" caused the game to display the wrong prize. The company argued that the actual outcome was determined by a random number generator, which had awarded the smaller "Daily Jackpot." They pointed to their terms and conditions, which stated they were not liable for system errors, and presented internal logs indicating that the smaller jackpot had been legitimately triggered.

Issues like this have fuelled players' frustration with some traditional platforms, especially compared to bitcoin casino platforms, where blockchain technology ensures every result is provably fair, eliminating doubts about system errors or hidden mechanics. As a result, many players have shifted to these platforms not only for verifiable and fairer gaming across thousands of provably fair games but also for faster payouts, diverse payment methods, and a variety of lucrative bonuses.

This growing shift toward blockchain-based platforms highlights a broader demand for transparency and reliability at traditional online gambling providers—precisely the concerns at the heart of Durber’s case.

Durber's legal team countered that the online gambling industry operates on trust, and customers should be able to rely on what they see on their screens. This argument ultimately persuaded Mr. Justice Ritchie, who ruled in Durber's favour.

In his judgment, Justice Ritchie emphasised that customers have reasonable expectations that information displayed during online gaming is accurate. He dismissed Paddy Power's contractual terms regarding system errors as "onerous" and unfair to players. The ruling required the company to pay the full jackpot amount displayed, less the sum already awarded.

Durber expressed relief that the ruling had delivered justice while also voicing frustration over the length of time it took to reach a resolution. She indicated she would not use Paddy Power's services again after her experience. A spokesperson for Flutter UKI, Paddy Power's parent company, expressed disappointment with the outcome but noted that they respected the court's decision. This landmark ruling establishes a significant precedent for the online gambling industry in the UK. It reinforces gambling operators' responsibility to ensure accurate game displays and fair player treatment, potentially leading to stronger consumer protections across the sector. The case highlights the importance of system integrity and transparency when real money is involved.

The decision may prompt other gambling operators to review their systems and terms of service to avoid similar disputes. As the online gambling market continues to expand, this case serves as a reminder that companies must maintain transparent operations and be held accountable for the information presented to their customers.

The ruling also addresses the inherent power imbalance between gambling operators and individual players, suggesting that courts may scrutinise terms and conditions that attempt to shield companies from liability for technical errors affecting gambling outcomes.

Industry observers note this case could influence future regulatory approaches to online gambling, potentially resulting in requirements for more robust testing of gaming systems and clearer communication about how winnings are determined and verified.

Legal experts suggest the case may have broader implications for consumer protection in digital environments beyond gambling. The principle that displayed information creates legitimate expectations could extend to other online transactions where visual representations inform consumer decisions. Financial regulators are reportedly monitoring the outcome closely, as similar disputes could arise in electronic trading platforms where display errors might affect investment decisions. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect consumers from technical disclaimers that most users never read, potentially influencing contract law interpretations across digital commerce sectors.