Paddy Power must pay out customer Corinne Pearl Durber £1m in compensation over a disputed “Monster Jackpot” on Red Tiger‘s Wild Hatter slot.
The subsidiary of Flutter Entertainment lost a High Court of Justice ruling following a lawsuit by Durber, who claimed she won the “Monster Jackpot” of £1.097m but was only awarded a Daily Jackpot of £20,000 by Paddy Power.
While Durber was playing the slot on her iPad in October 2020, she landed three jackpot symbols, activating the Jackpot Game Round of the slot.
The Jackpot Round of the Wild Hatter slot rewards players with prizes such as Cash Booster, Daily Jackpot, and Monster Jackpot, determined by spinning a wheel. After hitting ‘play,’ the wheel stopped on the Monster Jackpot prize, with the screen displaying to Durber that she had won £1m.
Upon only receiving £20,000, Durber contacted Paddy Power’s customer services team, who informed her that a “software error” had caused the incorrect display.
Customer support further explained the mechanics of Wild Hatter’s Random Number Generator (RNG) and informed Durber that Paddy Power could only offer her the lower Daily Jackpot.
They cited Clause B1 of their Terms & Conditions, which stated that in the event of a discrepancy between the screen display and the server record, the server records would take precedence.
Not satisfied, Durber brought proceedings against PPB Entertainment, arguing that Paddy Power should adhere to the rules of the game as promoted to customers, in this case that the jackpot wheel spin should determine the prize awarded.
This viewpoint was shared by Mr Justice Ritchie, who in his judgement on Wednesday (5 March) said that the idea of “what you see is what you get” was central to the game and agreed that the claimant had the right to challenge the validity of the slot game’s Terms & Conditions.
He added: “The Defendant’s reliance on its written Terms & Conditions to override the clear, visible outcome of the game played by the Claimant is problematic.
“Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct.”
Operator Responsibility
The result of the case will have been of great interest to the wider iGaming industry. The precedence set by the ruling shows that operators may no longer be able to rely on lengthy Ts & Cs in similar disputes.
Prior to the ruling, Martyn Hannah, MD of online casino comparison site Comparasino, spoke to iGaming Expert about the need for reflection on what players are agreeing to when they sign up and play and greater transparency surrounding Ts & Cs to improve consumer trust.
He said: “It might be that operators really can’t change their terms and conditions, but if that is the case, they need to do more to educate players as to what they actually contain and what impact it has on them.
“Forfeiting bonus winnings or refusing a payout because of a technical glitch and then pointing to a clause buried deep in the operator’s terms and conditions essentially puts the onus back on the player and for me at least, that equates to poor customer service.
“I think if operators could be more transparent about their terms and conditions, simplify them where possible, educate players where complexities must exist and really ask if the clause is fair, they would be able to foster much deeper trust.”