Paddy Power Ordered to Pay Out £1.1M Slot Jackpot After Software Glitch

• A Paddy Power slot player appeared to hit £1.1M jackpot but was only paid £20K
• The operator said the game glitched and showed the wrong animation
• A judge ordered the claimant to be paid in full

A UK woman who sued Paddy Power after it refused to pay out a £1.1 million (US$1.4 million) jackpot has won her case against the operator.

In October 2020, Corrine Durber, a gardener from Gloucestershire, was playing the Alice in Wonderland-themed Wild Hatter online slot when she appeared to hit the “Monster Jackpot” of £1,097,132.71.

Durber sued Flutter Entertainment subsidiary PPB Entertainment, which trades as Paddy Power, in London’s High Court for breach of contract, demanding the full amount.

House Always Wins?

Typically, the odds are stacked against the player in these cases, as casinos’ terms and conditions state that game malfunctions void all pays and plays.

Instead of $42 million, Bookman ultimately received the $2.25 win that the machine should have displayed and a free steak dinner.

However, London’s High Court has proven to be a more player-friendly battleground in recent years.

‘What You See is What You Get’

Lawyers for Paddy Power argued that all its players sign up to its terms and conditions when registering.

These state: “If as a result of a Malfunction, your Account is credited with winnings that you would not have received were it not for that Malfunction, we will have the right to void the relevant transaction and withhold the relevant winnings.”

But the judge, Mr. Justice Ritchie, was unswayed by this argument. In a 62-page ruling, he wrote that the concept of “what you see is what you get” was “central” to the game.

Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct,” wrote Ritchie. “The same expectation probably applies when customers go into a physical casino and play roulette.”

“When a trader puts all the risk on a consumer for its own recklessness, negligence, errors, inadequate digital services, and inadequate testing, that appears onerous to me,” the judge added.

Durber told the BBC she was “relieved and happy” that the judge had determined she won “fairly and squarely.”

“We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment,” said Paddy Power in a statement.