Paddy Power loses Monster Jackpot payout case
We recently reported on the case of a Paddy Power customer taking legal action against the casino giant. The dispute centred around a major discrepancy between the jackpot amount player Corinne Durber saw on her display and the win as recorded by Paddy Power’s central computer.
Paddy Power awarded Durber just £20k after she hit the £1 million Monster Jackpot while playing the Wild Hatter slot game. The online casino withheld the remaining winnings on the grounds that their central computer had only registered a win worth £20k, due to a “mapping error”. Their T&Cs state that the central random number generator is the definitive factor when it comes to determining wins.
Durber’s counter-argument was that players naturally believe what they are shown on screen, and that Paddy Power should be accountable for its own error. She argued that, as the only part of the system visible to players, the on-screen display should be binding.
The ruling
After years of legal to-ing and fro-ing, High Court Judge Sir Andrew George Ritchie ruled in Durber’s favour. The case was resolved in the High Court on 5 March 2025 with Paddy Power’s parent company Flutter UKI ordered to pay the remainder of the full £1,097,132 jackpot.
The Judge’s main reasoning was that companies such as Paddy Power operate on a “what you see is what you get" principle.
Judge criticises Paddy Power
Judge Ritchie also took Paddy Power to task for placing the responsibility on the customer when the flaw was in their system, and mentioned how the relevant terms and conditions were “buried in 44 pages of dense text”. This was determined to be a violation of the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015.
After the case, Corinne Durber was photographed outside the High Court celebrating, champagne in hand, with her husband and solicitor.
The legal machinations have taken years, and the outcome will likely have serious implications for the wider industry.
Reactions
Durber expressed her relief, saying:
"The Judge has confirmed I fairly and squarely won £1 million from Paddy Power.” She also warned players against gambling with Paddy Power, questioning “why couldn’t Paddy Power pay up straight away instead of putting me through this legal torment? I will never bet with them ever again, and I advise others to be very careful too.”
Flutter UKI released a statement, stressing that:
“Every week, tens of thousands of customers win with Paddy Power, including an individual who received a £5.7 million jackpot just one year ago.”
However, Flutter UKI opted not to accept any responsibility or fault, stating:
“We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment.” It is not yet known whether they will appeal.
What does this mean for the industry?
This ruling is likely to cost Paddy Power more than the £1 million settlement. The reputational damage is difficult to quantify, although Flutter and its brands will likely experience some degree of backlash and reduction in players using their platform.
But the implications of the ruling go beyond defendant and claimant. They may even have a bearing on legislation and set a legal precedent for cases of customer dissatisfaction or technical issues which have resulted in withheld winnings.
In response to the case’s outcome, other casinos with T&Cs similar to Paddy Power’s will no doubt be combing through their own agreement documents and tightening them up.
Regulators need to respond
Regulators will also need to respond. The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), surprisingly, are yet (as of 11 March) to comment.
The Commission may review legislation relating to terms and conditions, increasing transparency and fairness. It may even make what is displayed on the player’s screen legally binding, rather than what Flutter’s representatives crudely referred to as “wallpaper”.
For the public, trust in casinos has always been a fragile thing, and the relationship with players can be delicate. The Durber case certainly won’t help.
Know your rights
In the light of this case, it’s worth refreshing your understanding of your rights when playing at online casinos.
Casinos are obliged to present their terms and conditions in clear, plain English. This is to prevent the use of complicated legal jargon, and ensure players can make informed wagers.
Casinos must also have pre-bet pop-ups that explain certain clauses, requirements and stipulations. In-game mechanics including random number generators and jackpot systems must be clearly disclosed. Return to player (RTP) rates must be displayed, and random number generators must be tested and demonstrably fair.
Players must always have access to safer gambling tools and the option to self-exclude.
If you run into a technical glitch and the casino refuses to pay out, you can escalate the issue by contacting an independent dispute resolution service.
There are various other data protection and consumer rights laws that look after the player’s best interests. To ensure that you’re protected and equipped when looking for a new casino, check out our guide what to watch out for in an online casino.
Where do we go from here?
There are a few potential courses of action that casinos could take. Some may continue to bury clauses relating to technical issues and culpability in their terms and conditions. Other less cynical companies might opt to make what is displayed on-screen legally binding and put everything out in the open.
Restoring trust
As a gesture of good faith and responsibility, casinos should:
- Review and clarify their terms and conditions agreements.
- Review their technical systems, and allocate resources to finding and fixing glitches.
- Revisit existing T&Cs and agreements.
Restoring trust in the player-casino relationship will be key for many casinos.
Player-friendly policy and revised T&Cs
The Commission will surely be working on a response. As a world-leading regulator, the UKGC needs to take action and create a player-friendly policy that addresses discrepancies such as those seen in the Durber case. Legislation must unambiguously determine who is culpable in the case of technical errors.
It may also be necessary for the UKGC to standardise certain terms and conditions in order to prevent any possible confusion. There must be little room for interpretation, so that the five-year saga of the Durber case doesn’t happen again.
Summary
Players trust what they see on their screens, and the Judge was wise to rule in Durber’s favour. The fault in Paddy Power’s system is their responsibility, because the display is the only reference point players have.
This is a landmark ruling for gambling law, and it may lead to further cases which cite technical glitches or instances of casinos hiding behind murky terms and conditions. For consumer protection and rights, this is a victory.
A final word
It's surprising this case went so far and for so long. The reputational damage to Paddy Power, their expenses and the long-term distraction for senior employers and advisors will surely add up to more than £1.1m. So, why did they dig their heels in for over 4 years?