In an ironic twist to the old adage that “The House Always Wins”, gambling giant Paddy Power has been ordered to pay out a disputed £1 million Monster Jackpot to Corrine Durber, the daughter and grand-daughter of Bristol bookies.
The case, described as a “nightmare” by Corrine, a gardener from Tetbury in Gloucestershire, had rumbled since 2020 when she won the Monster Jackpot of £1,097,132 (US$1.4m) playing Red Tiger’s Wild Hatter slots on the Paddy Power site.
But Flutter Entertainment-owned Paddy Power refused to pay out, saying there had been a technical glitch on the online site and only paid Corrine £20,265 (US$26,164).
Luckily, quick-thinking Corrine had taken a screen shot of her Monster Jackpot win, which was crucial in her pursuant court case and a judgement in her favour.
“My grand-father was a well known bookmaker in Bristol,” Corrine told reporters. “And my father, who loved horse racing, followed him in the business. I guess you could say it runs in the blood.”
The case, settled by legal judgement, without recourse to trial, has raised key questions about how terms and conditions are formulated and presented in the iGaming industry.
Breach of Contract
Corrine Durber’s lawyer, David Sheahan, argued that Paddy Power’s refusal to pay amounted to a breach of contract.
But the betting brand asserted that their site’s terms and conditions covered these technical errors.
“In Clause B1, server records were definitive in cases of discrepancy,” argued Paddy Power. “And in Clause B2, the company was not liable for system or communication errors and could void game rounds with malfunctions.”
Sheahan countered that the game’s rules contradicted Clause B1 and argued that the jackpot wheel determines the winnings.
Justice Andre Ritchie agreed, finding that the game’s rules took priority over the website’s terms and conditions because Clauses B1 and B2 lacked clarity and were not sufficiently highlighted to players.
Moreover, because the issue originated from a human error in mapping the game software, Justice Richie ruled that Clause B2, which covered “systems or communications errors,” did not apply.
Seeing is Believing
In his ruling, Justice Ritchie emphasised that player expectations in gambling rely on clear and transparent outcomes: that the idea of “what you see is what you get” is “central” to the game.
He added: “Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be 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. They expect the house to pay out on the roulette wheel if they bet on number 13 and the ball lands on number 13.”
The judge acknowledged that Paddy Power’s claim of a ‘mapping error’ was valid. But he ruled that the company–not the player–must bear responsibility for the mistake:
“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.”
Deep Regret But No Direct Apology
Commenting on her win, Durber said she was “relieved” and “happy” but described the case as “legal torment.”
“We always strive to provide the best customer experience possible and pride ourselves on fairness.”
And while the spokesperson said Flutter UKI “deeply regret[s] this unfortunate case”, they did not direct an apology to Mrs Durber.
Wrong Said Betfred
This is not the first time a technical game error has led to disputed payouts.
In 2021, UK national Andrew Green was awarded £1.7 million (US$2.19m), plus interest, in a similar ruling against Betfred.
Green had been playing online blackjack in 2018 when he won the jackpot, but the operator claimed it was due to a software error and refused to pay him the winnings.
The High Court sided with the player, rejecting Betfred’s argument that its terms and conditions, which, like those of most gambling operators, used a broad clause to cover technical errors and glitches, were enforceable.
The judge ruled against Betfred, setting a precedent that allowed Durber’s case to be settled via summary judgment rather than requiring a full trial.
Wake-Up Call
The message from this ruling is clear: a lack of transparency and attempts to override visual wins with hidden terms and conditions will not stand up to the letter of consumer law.
And Durber’s lawyer, David Sheahan, warns this case is just the beginning:
“Corinne’s not the only one. There will be others in similar situations who are legally in the right. But do they take on the might of a betting giant for five years, or do they settle for the lesser amount these companies decide they should have?”
And for gambling operators, this ruling is a red flag.
Ensuring terms and conditions are transparent, accessible, and clearly communicated is no longer optional. It’s a necessity.
Players must know exactly where they stand before the play, or companies risk facing legal battles that could prove far costlier than simply playing fair.
Specifically, any clauses that could be considered unusual or onerous for the consumer, especially those that allow wins to be voided, must be explicitly communicated before a player places a bet.
