A woman from the UK won her lawsuit against Paddy Power after the operator refused to pay up a £1.1 million (US$1.4 million) jackpot.
Gloucestershire gardener Corrine Durber appeared to win the £1,097,132.71 “Monster Jackpot” in October 2020 while she was playing the online slot machine Wild Hatter, which had an Alice in Wonderland theme.
Paddy Power, however, only disbursed £20,265 (US$26,131). The operator clarified that a programming error had caused her to see the incorrect winning animation even though the random number generator had concluded she had won the lesser “Daily Jackpot.”
Durber demanded the whole whack in a breach of contract lawsuit filed in London’s High Court against PPB Entertainment, a subsidiary of Flutter Entertainment that operates under the name Paddy Power.
Does House Win Every Time?
Since the terms and conditions of casinos stipulate that game malfunctions nullify all wins and plays, the odds are usually stacked against the player in these situations.
Katrina Bookman, a single mother from Queens, New York, was playing an IGT slot machine at Resorts World New York City in 2016 with a $6,500 maximum reward. The $42,949,672.76 jackpot she won was therefore obviously the result of a glitch.
In the end, Bookman got a free steak meal and the $2.25 victory that the system should have shown, rather than $42 million.
But in recent years, the London High Court has shown itself to be a more player-friendly battlefield.
See also:
- Five offshore online casinos receive cease-and-desist orders from a Michigan regulator
- Kindred’s acquisition “opens a new chapter” for FDJ, as revenues increased by 17%
- FDJ Rebrands as FDJ UNITED
“What you see is what you get” Says Judge
Paddy Power’s attorneys contended that once enrolling, all of its participants agree to its terms and conditions.
These say: “We will have the right to void the relevant transaction and withhold the relevant winnings if a malfunction causes your account to be credited with winnings that you would not have received had that malfunction not occurred.”
However, this reasoning failed to persuade Mr. Justice Ritchie, the judge. He stated that the idea that “what you see is what you get” was “central” to the game in a 62-page verdict.
Customers would logically wish and anticipate that the content displayed to them on the screen would be accurate and correct, Ritchie wrote. “When patrons enter a real casino to play roulette, the same expectation most likely applies.”
The judge went on to say, “It seems burdensome to me when a trader places all the risk on a customer for its own carelessness, mistakes, and insufficient digital services and testing.”
Durber told the BBC that the judge’s decision to rule that she won “fairly and squarely” made her “relieved and happy.”
In a statement, Paddy Power said, “We are reviewing the judgment and deeply regret this unfortunate case.”
Join us on all our social channels and groups
Gameongazette is present on:
