In a judgment handed down on 5 March 2025, PaddyPower (trading name of PPB Entertainment Limited) was ordered to pay more than £1million to one of their customers (“C”) after a mistake in the computer system displayed an erroneously higher jackpot win on an online wheel of fortune-style game.

C’s claim was effectively for breach of contract. C pleaded that she had contracted with PaddyPower as a consumer within the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that she had succeeded in winning the Monster Jackpot of £1,097,132.71 while playing the “Wild Hatter” game on her iPad. She brought the claim because PaddyPower had refused to pay the full amount and instead offered to pay her the Daily Jackpot of just £20,265.14 (more than 50 times less than the amount shown on her screen).

Why didn’t PaddyPower pay out? They pleaded that the outcome of the game was determined by random number generator software, which had determined that C had only won the lower Daily Jackpot amount. However, the animation on her screen showed that she had won the Monster Jackpot. This was because of a mapping error. PaddyPower argued that the outcome of the game, as per their terms and conditions, was based on the result recorded on their servers, not on the customer’s screen, or alternatively that malfunctions could void the play altogether.

Almost anyone who has been an online consumer can appreciate at online terms and conditions are often lengthy and PaddyPower’s were no exception running to “44 pages of closely typed small print with numerous hyperlinks to other pages” and that “no reasonable consumer could be expected to read and understand”. C relied instead on the rules of the game set out on the screen, which stated that spinning the wheel would determine the jackpot.

Ultimately, this was caused by human error. The wrong jackpot symbols had been mapped to the available winnings, so that the Daily Jackpot and Monster Jackpot were effectively swapped. It was a human programming error, not a system error.

At the summary judgment hearing earlier this year, Mr. Justice Ritchie determined ultimately that the proper construction of the contract was that the rules of the game had priority over the terms and conditions. Consequently, the result or outcome shown on the screen was what C was entitled to under contract. Mr. Justice Ritchie therefore granted summary judgment (or judgment without a full trial) to C.

What can we take away from this?

This case deals with multiple points of law, including the incorporation of contractual terms and their enforceability, the rights of consumers and how multiple contractual documents (such as a set of rules and terms and conditions) can clash and have unintended consequences.

The judge in this case determined that the reasonable consumer expects that “what you see is what you get”.

For those who deal with consumers online, care and testing need to take place to ensure that what a customer is shown on the screen matches what you intend to provide.

The judge equated the situation to live roulette: “where the player who bet on number 13 and sees the ball stop on the roulette wheel on number 13, is not allowed to rely on what she sees. A term allowing the house to assert that the ball actually landed on another number (say zero) would be unusual and disempowering.”

As a business, you should not gamble with contractual terms. This case shows how important it is that when you contract you need to get the terms right. If you have any concerns about how your terms and conditions operate, or any dispute over contract terms, then the team are here to help.

The judgment is available here: Durber v PPB Entertainment Ltd [2025] EWHC 498 (KB) (05 March 2025)

Image source: Adobe Stock