Paddy Power payout palaver
A UK slots player is suing Paddy Power after a significant discrepancy between ‘displayed winnings’ and what was actually received from the gaming giant.
It is thought that the ruling could have industry-shaking implications, and raise the question of where the buck actually stops in situations like this.
Background
In October 2020, Corrinne Durber, a Paddy Power customer, was playing Wild Hatter, a jackpot game set in the Alice in Wonderland world.
Durber got lucky, matching symbols within the bonus game and hitting the Monster Jackpot. At the time, she was informed ('displayed winnings') that the jackpot was worth £1,097,132. However, her account was ultimately only credited with £20,265.
Payout refused
Paddy Power refused to pay out the balance. They described the discrepancy as a “mismatch” between the customer’s display and Paddy Power’s central computers, essentially chalking it up to a technical glitch.
Durber escalated the case, and is taking the operator to court, claiming the relevant terms and conditions are “murky”.
Paddy Power maintains that what its central computer records is, according to their 45-page terms and conditions document – the ‘rule book’ which determines the outcomes should there be any anomalies.
For and against
Making their case, the operator’s legal team described the interface that the customer actually sees and interacts with as mere “wallpaper”.
Appealing to the judge, Durber’s representative said: “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. [...] That’s not a system or computer error, it’s a human error.”
What happens next?
The case will now be taken to London’s High Court, where a judge will rule on whether Paddy Power is at fault. Whilst it seems at first as though Paddy Power has made an error, and should therefore be required to pay out, it’s apparent the operator has a strong defence.
It's all about the interpretation of T&Cs
Paddy Power’s terms and conditions state that the customer “accepts and agrees that random number generator software will determine all outcomes of the game”. They also state that the operator will “not be liable” for the results of “systems or communication error”.
Whether or not the judge sides with the customer will likely come down to technicalities and terminology within the terms and conditions. If the customer’s claim that the terms are “murky” are found to be true, the operator may still have to put hand in pocket and make up the £1.1m sum.
Precedents
There are a few precedents which may give some indicator as to the possible outcome.
In January 2018, a Betfred customer was denied the £1.7 million jackpot he had hit, with the operator citing a defect in the game. In 2021, the court ruled that Betfred’s terms and conditions weren’t adequate, and ordered the operator to pay out.
In 2024, a court ruled in favour of Camelot, the National Lottery operator, after a customer claimed to have been denied £1 million in winnings. The deciding factor was, again, the quality and clarity of the terms and conditions.
These various cases suggest that rulings such as these often come down to the specifics of the terms and conditions, if they are comprehensive enough.
Implications
The implications of the ruling could be far-reaching and, in the long-term, influential.
Regulators may tighten the rules on terms and conditions, or seek to more clearly define certain terms within them. There will no doubt be other operators tightening up and reinforcing their own agreements, ensuring they’re watertight.
Ambiguous and lacking transparency
The ambiguities in the phrasing of terms and conditions, particularly the fact that they seem be interpreted in quite different ways, could lead to changes in transparency law. Transparency and fairness laws are particularly relevant to gambling, and, as the world’s technology advances, they’re in constant need of refinement.
Issue goes beyond just Paddy Power
As far as customers are concerned, some players might be surprised by some of the terms and conditions that they’ve agreed to. Cases like this could result in a lack of trust and a breakdown in the operator-player relationship. This relationship is important to the health of the industry, and it’s something that operators invest a lot of money in to establish.
For this reason, the case could prove costly to operators other than Paddy Power, if players do indeed lose trust. Describing the actual games as “wallpaper” is unlikely to help their case in this regard; the player’s expectations are set by the interface alone.
This case doesn’t reflect well on Paddy Power, or on the industry as a whole. There will always be grey areas and room for interpretation, no matter how tight terms and conditions get. But there’s only so much a customer should be required to accept.
It seems that realistic responsibilities and fairness should inform the ruling, and that culpability should be about more than simply whose lawyers can best skew the terms and conditions in their client’s favour.
Costly – however you look at it
Ultimately. and ironically, this whole episode may cost Paddy Power more than if they had just paid out the nearly £1.1m back in 2020.
