A woman from the United Kingdom, Corrine Durber, has taken Paddy Power to court after the slot machine Wild Hatter suffered a software glitch that did not allow her to take home £1.1 million in prizes. Instead, she was merely awarded £20,265, and the operator said that the RNG (random number generator) had determined that she had won the much smaller jackpot, but that she was shown the wrong animation due to an error in programming.

A woman from the UK who brought the slot operator Paddy Power to court for withholding her £1.1 million (US$1.4 million) prize jackpot has won the case, securing a landmark victory against the gambling operator.

Judge rules in favor of player

Corrine Durber from Gloucestershire took legal action against Paddy Power after the company refused to pay her the full amount she believed she had won while playing the Wild Hatter slot online in October of 2020. Instead of receiving the £1,097,132.71 Monster Jackpot, Durber was paid only £20,265 (US$26,131) by the operator, which claimed the displayed jackpot was the result of a glitch.

Paddy Power, operated by Flutter Entertainment affiliate PPB Entertainment, argued that a programming error caused the slot to show the incorrect winning animation. According to the company, the game's random number generator had determined that Durber had only won the much smaller Daily Jackpot. However, after a lengthy legal battle, the High Court of London ruled in Durber's favor, ordering Paddy Power to pay her the full amount.

Gambling terms and conditions under close scrutiny

Legal disputes over slot machine payouts often favor the casino, as most operators include clauses in their terms and conditions stating that malfunctions void all winnings. Paddy Power attempted to defend its decision based on this policy, arguing that Durber had agreed to these terms upon registering her account.

The terms explicitly state: "If as a result of a Malfunction, your Account is credited with winnings that you would not have received were it not for that Malfunction, we will have the right to void the relevant transaction and withhold the relevant winnings."

However, Mr. Justice Ritchie, who presided over the case, found this argument insufficient. In his 62-page ruling, the judge emphasized that the "what you see is what you get" principle was fundamental to the player experience in both online and physical casinos.

'Fair and square' win

"Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was shown to them on screen was accurate and correct," Ritchie wrote. "The same expectation probably applies when customers go into a physical casino and play roulette."

He further criticized Paddy Power's reliance on the malfunction clause, stating that placing all responsibility on the player for the company's own "recklessness, negligence, errors, inadequate digital services, and inadequate testing" was unfair and unreasonable.

Following the ruling, Durber expressed relief and joy at the outcome. "I'm just so happy and relieved that the judge determined I won fairly and squarely," she said.

A rare legal victory for players

Historically, similar cases have ended in disappointment for players. In 2016, Katrina Bookman, a single mother from Queens, New York, believed she had won a staggering $42.9 million on a slot machine at Resorts World New York City. However, the maximum payout for the machine was just $6,500, and the casino argued that her jackpot was a clear glitch. Bookman was ultimately awarded just $2.25, the actual amount she had won, along with a free steak dinner as consolation.

Durber's victory, however, demonstrates a shift in legal attitudes toward player rights and transparency in digital gambling.

Paddy Power responds

Paddy Power has acknowledged the ruling but stopped short of accepting full responsibility. "We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment," the company stated following the decision. The ruling could have significant implications for the online gambling industry, potentially prompting closer scrutiny over how companies handle game malfunctions and how they communicate with players about jackpot wins.

For now, Durber's case serves as a warning to gambling operators that courts may not always uphold their broad "malfunction voids all winnings" policies, especially when such clauses appear unfairly weighted against consumers.