Terms and conditions for UK operators will come under intense scrutiny as Paddy Power is set for a court battle with a customer who alleges she has been unfairly denied her £1 million jackpot.
The win occurred in the Wild Hatter game and was a result of Corrinne Durber reportedly winning the Monster Jackpot of £1,097,132.71. However, her account was only credited with £20,265.14 after the operator said a “mismatch” had occurred.
The error cited centres around a discrepancy between the result that was determined on Paddy Power’s central computers and the one that appeared on her screen.
She has since escalated the issue which occurred in October 2020 during the pandemic, taking the decision to sue Paddy Power, alleging that there has been an injustice having not been paid out in full.
Paddy Power has consistently defended its decision, having taken the player through a 45-page rulebook and having stated that the central computer is the integral factor when it comes to the outcome of games.
The incident took place during an extension of the bonus game, which is the jackpot bonus game triggered by matching jackpot symbols.
The jackpot wheel subsequently appeared to indicate that Durber had won in excess of £1m, yet the Paddy Power computers in the company’s head office told a different story, leading to the dispute.
The operator has emphasised that players agree to the terms and conditions when playing the game and signing up with the website that the outcome of the game is determined by the Paddy Power central computer.
Yet the terms and conditions were described as “murky” by Durber’s legal team, which is making the case that they had not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the player.
Making the case to the judge, Durber’s barrister Mark Baldock stated “There is a fundamental inconsistency and, in these circumstances, the game rules have to prevail.
“This is all about risk. If the defendant has not got its house in order, why should the responsibility fall on my client’s shoulders?”
“Somebody incorrectly mapped the software to the pot,” he said. “That’s not a system or computer error, it’s a human error.”
The case is set for London’s High Court and could have a significant impact on how the industry lays out game rules in the future, specifically around the impact of terms and conditions that players agree to before engaging with iGaming products.
