Paddy Power Ordered to Pay £1 Million Prize to Winner Over Payment Error
A gardener, Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, was left in disbelief after being informed she had won over £1 million from an online Paddy Power game, only to receive a payout of around £20,000. The incident occurred in October 2020 when Mrs. Durber played the Wild Hatter game, a combination of a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune style game with two parts. Upon reaching the second part and spinning the jackpot wheel, her iPad screen displayed that she had won the “Monster Jackpot” amounting to £1,097,132.71 on the day of play.
However, to her dismay, Paddy Power only transferred £20,265.14 to her account, citing that she had won the smaller “Daily Jackpot” due to a glitch in the game’s display. Unsatisfied with the partial payout, Mrs. Durber took legal action against PPB Entertainment Limited, trading as Paddy Power and Betfair, for breach of contract and to claim the remaining prize money based on the on-screen notification she had received. Following a High Court case, Mr. Justice Ritchie ruled in Mrs. Durber’s favour, granting her the rest of her winnings without the need for a trial, compelling Paddy Power to pay the outstanding amount.
PPB defended its position by stating that the game’s outcome was determined by a random number generator, which supposedly indicated that Mrs. Durber had won the daily jackpot. However, the erroneous display on her screen was attributed to a programming mistake that misrepresented the actual prize. Mr. Justice Ritchie highlighted the principle of “what you see is what you get” as crucial to gaming fairness. He emphasised that customers rightfully expect displayed results to be accurate and align with the intended outcomes of the game.
In a 62-page ruling, the judge underscored that discrepancies between the random number generator’s output and the displayed result were human errors in the software mapping process. He criticised Paddy Power for shifting the risk onto the consumer due to its own negligence, inadequate digital services, and testing protocols. Mrs. Durber expressed relief and satisfaction with the court’s decision, reiterating her disappointment with Paddy Power’s initial response and cautioning others to be wary of similar situations when dealing with betting companies.
In response to the judgment, a spokesperson for Flutter UKI, the parent company of Paddy Power, expressed regret over the incident and assured customers of their commitment to fairness. The company acknowledged the case as an unfortunate anomaly and pledged to review the ruling. The outcome serves as a cautionary tale highlighting the importance of transparency and accountability in the gaming industry, emphasising the need for companies to honour their commitments to customers when substantial winnings are at stake.
The verdict resonates with broader discussions surrounding consumer rights and corporate responsibility in the digital age, underscoring the significance of upholding integrity and trust in online transactions. Mrs. Durber’s successful legal challenge sets a precedent for ensuring that customers are treated fairly and receive their entitled rewards, deterring companies from reneging on their obligations in similar circumstances. As the case concludes, it prompts reflection on the evolving landscape of online gaming and the measures required to safeguard consumer interests in an increasingly digitised economy.