Media reports explain that Corrine Durber had played online slot game The Wild Hatterin October 2020, and was initially informed she had won a jackpot worth £1,097,132.71.

However, Paddy Power later insisted she had only won a significantly smaller amount of £20,265.14, claiming a system error had mistakenly displayed the wrong prize.

The game, themed around Alice in Wonderland, functioned as a combination of a fruit machine and a wheel-of-fortune-style game with two main parts.

Durber advanced to the second part and spun the jackpot wheel, where her iPad screen clearly showed that she had landed the game’s “Monster Jackpot” prize.

Despite the apparent win, Paddy Power later told her that the prize appeared due to a software error, whereas she had in fact only won the “Daily Jackpot” amount. The company argued that a human programming error had caused the game to display an incorrect result.

Unwilling to accept the explanation, Durber sued PPB Entertainment Limited, which operates under the Paddy Power and Betfair brands, for breach of contract, arguing that she was entitled to the full winnings based on what was displayed on her screen.

After reviewing the case, a court judge ruled in Durber’s favour, granting summary judgment, meaning the case was decided without proceeding to a full trial.

The court found that the software malfunction had affected 14 separate game plays over a period of 48 days and that Paddy Power’s claim of an error did not absolve them of their responsibility to pay the stated prize.

What you see is what you get

Justice Andrew Ritchie, who presided over the case, emphasised that in a gambling environment, the principle of “what you see is what you get” is fundamental.

He was critical of the betting company’s attempt to shift the burden of its own mistakes onto consumers, stating that it was unreasonable to expect players to bear the consequences of programming errors made by the operator.

Durber expressed her frustration over having to fight for her winnings through the legal system, questioning why the betting company had not paid out immediately rather than putting her through years of uncertainty and litigation.

She also vowed never to bet with Paddy Power again, warning other consumers to be cautious when engaging with the platform.

Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Flutter UKI, the parent company of Paddy Power, expressed regret over the situation.

The unidentified individual told Sky Newsthat the company prides itself on fairness and is committed to providing the best customer experience, but that company executives would review the court’s judgment and consider their next steps.

Technical glitches don’t offer free pass

This case is not the first instance of online gambling operators refusing to pay out winnings, often having cited technical errors or other internal justifications.

Andrew Green, a Lincolnshire resident, won a £1.7m jackpot in an online casino game hosted by Betfred in 2018, but faced a prolonged legal battle to claim his winnings.

The gambling firm refused to pay, citing a “defect” in the game Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven Blackjack, which allegedly made it more likely to pay out large sums.

For five days, Green believed he was a millionaire, only to have his withdrawal request denied.

After three years of legal proceedings, the UK High Court ruled in Green’s favor, determining that Betfred’s terms and conditions did not justify withholding the jackpot. The court ordered the company to pay the full £1,722,923.54, plus interest.

Betfred apologised for the delay and confirmed it would not appeal the ruling.