Paddy Power has been ordered to pay customer Corrinne Pearl Durber compensation of £1m in relation to a disputed pay-out of a “Monster Jackpot.”
The Flutter Entertainment subsidiary lost a High Court of Justice ruling following a lawsuit by Durber, who claimed she had been denied a jackpot of £1.097m won on the slot game Wild Hatter.
The incident occurred in October 2020, whilst Durber was playing the Wild Hatter slot on her iPad, she landed three jackpot symbols, activating the Jackpot Game Round’ of the slot.
The Jackpot Round of the Wild Hatter slot rewards players with prizes such as Cash Booster, Daily Jackpot, and Monster Jackpot, determined by spinning a wheel. Upon hitting ‘play,’ the wheel stopped on the Monster Jackpot prize, with the screen displaying to Durber that she had won £1m.
However, upon pay-out, Durber was awarded a Daily Jackpot prize of £20,000. She immediately contacted Paddy Power’s customer service team, who informed her that a “software error” had caused the incorrect display.
Due to a “mapping error,” Paddy Power explained that the Wild Hatter game had incorrectly displayed the Monster Jackpot on screen. Customer support further explained the mechanics of Wild Hatter’s Random Number Generator (RNG), which had actually determined a Daily Jackpot win.
The disgruntled customer was told that Paddy Power could only offer her the lower Daily Jackpot, citing Clause B1 of their Terms & Conditions. This clause stated that, in the event of a discrepancy between the screen display and the server records, the server records would be definitive.
Denied the Monster Jackpot, Durber initiated legal proceedings against PPB Entertainment, arguing that Paddy Power should adhere to the rules of the game as promoted to customers—specifically, that the jackpot wheel spin should determine the prize awarded.
Her barrister Mark Baldock (Coyle White Devine), the lawsuit put forward the argument that “customers rely on what is displayed on the screen” rather than the technicalities detailed in the Terms & Conditions.
As a customer, Durber had played in good faith and contended that the Monster Jackpot win displayed on her screen should be binding.
As a consequence, the validity of Paddy Power’s Terms & Conditions could be seen as unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Arbitrated by Mr Justice Ritchie, the lawsuit required the judge to examine multiple determinations including: “Whether the RNG of a slot game is the sole determinant of a jackpot win?” and “Whether game errors related to pay-outs can be overridden by Terms & Conditions?”
Although Paddy Power believed its Clause B1 was binding—stating that RNG server records are definitive—Justice Ritchie had to assess whether the rules of the game created an imbalance of rights in favour of the defendant.
Court Ruling
In his assessment, Justice Ritchie sided with the claimant against Paddy Power, ruling that rules promoted to customers should take precedence over Terms & Conditions.
The claimant had the right to challenge the validity of the slot game’s Terms & Conditions, as “terms were not clearly signposted” and Clause B1 was “buried in 44 pages of dense text.”
“The Terms and Conditions ran to 44 pages of closely typed small print with numerous hyperlinks to other pages. Given the draconian nature of the limitations imposed by these terms, no reasonable consumer could be expected to read and understand them—especially the terms relied upon by the Defendant in its defence—without them being expressly highlighted to the Claimant both prior to opening the account and on each subsequent occasion that the Claimant utilised the Defendant’s services.”
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 could apply to this specific lawsuit, as Clause B1 was deemed an unfair contract term that granted absolute power to the defendant to override errors while excluding the customer’s right to challenge them.
“The Defendant’s reliance on its written Terms & Conditions to override the clear, visible outcome of the game played by the Claimant is problematic.
The Court finds that these terms were not sufficiently brought to the Claimant’s attention, were buried within an extensive document, and contained provisions that significantly favoured the Defendant to the detriment of the consumer. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, such terms, which create a significant imbalance in rights and obligations, cannot be deemed fair or enforceable.”
