What you see is what you get – or is it? A summary and analysis of Durber v PPB Entertainment Limited

On 5 March 2025, Corrine Durber, a customer of Paddy Power, obtained a summary judgment against the operator for recovery of over £1,000,000 of jackpot winnings. Paddy Power sought to rely on its terms and conditions and argued the £1m jackpot was not payable due to a human programming error with the jackpot game. The case highlights the importance of both the presentation and drafting of terms and conditions if they are to be enforceable against consumers.

The Facts

On 18 October 2020, Durber played the ‘Wild Hatter’ game (the “Game”) on Paddy Power’s website. The Game consisted of two stages: the first being a fruit machine reel and the second being a wheel of fortune. To win a prize, the player had to be successful in both stages. Durber was successful in the first stage of the Game, and so proceeded to the second stage. The rules of the Game (the “Game Rules”) stated “Spin the jackpot wheel to determine which of the offered jackpot tiers will be won”. Upon clicking “Spin”, the animation indicated that Durber had won the “Monster Jackpot”, worth £1,097,132.71.

However on 1 September 2020, Red Tiger Gaming (“Red Tiger”), who supplied and hosted the Game for Paddy Power, had amended the Game’s animations and had in error mapped the Jackpot IDs to the wrong Jackpot symbols. The Monster Jackpot and Daily Jackpots were swapped, and the animation shown to Durber on the website was inconsistent with the results of the random number generator software (the “RNG”). Durber saw an animation showing that she had won the Monster Jackpot, however, the RNG result was that Durber had won only the Daily Jackpot, worth (a significantly less) £20,265.14.

Paddy Power awarded Durber the smaller Daily Jackpot. In withholding the Monster Jackpot, Paddy Power sought to rely on the following provisions of its standard terms and conditions (the “Terms”):

“You fully accept and agree that random number generator ("RNG") software will determine all outcomes of Games on the Games Website. In the event of a discrepancy between the results displayed on your computer and a Game's records on our server, our records shall be regarded as definitive.” [Referred to as Clause B1]

“In the event of systems or communications errors relating to the generation of any result, bet settlement or any other element of a Game, we will not be liable to you as a result of any such errors and we reserve the right to void all related bets and plays on the Game in question."  [Referred to as Clause B2]

The Judgment

Finding in favour of Durber, Justice Ritchie held:

1. Construction of the Game Rules:  The Game Rules applied and set out that it was the jackpot wheel as shown to Durber that determined what she had won (i.e. “what you see is what you get”), not the RNG. 
2. Priority:  The Game Rules took precedence over the Terms as a result of the preamble of the Terms, which stated that, in the event of an inconsistency, the Game Rules would prevail over the Terms. Accordingly, as set out in the Game Rules, Durber had won the Monster Jackpot.
3. Human Error and Clause B2:  Even if Clause B2 did have priority over the Game Rules, the reference to “systems or communications errors” in Clause B2 did not cover human errors. 
4. Incorporation:  Clauses B1 and B2 were not incorporated into the contract between Paddy Power and Durber because they were unusual and onerous and were not adequately brought to Durber’s attention.
5. Enforceability of the Clauses under the Consumer Rights Act 2015:  Even if B1 and B2 were incorporated into the contract, they were unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because they were too broad and therefore unfair. A term is considered unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer.

Based on the above, Ms Durber’s application for summary judgment was granted.

Key Takeaways

This case is reminiscent of the decision reached in Andrew Green v Petfre (Gibraltar) Ltd (t/a Betfred) and highlights the importance of operators ensuring that they both draft and present their consumer terms carefully. As with the Green case, the Judge acknowledged that operators can exclude their liability to pay out winnings in the event of a game error, but such terms must be clear, consistent, well signposted, precise and fair - and the court will hold operators to a high bar for this.

The key takeaways for all operators are as follows:

1. Ensure terms and conditions are consistent.  A critical issue in this case was that Paddy Power’s Game Rules apparently contradicted their Terms - they were unintentionally saying different things in different places. In addition, when determining that the reference to “systems or communications errors” in Clause B2 did not cover human error, the Judge noted how some other clauses within the Terms referred to “human errors” and “systems errors” separately. This highlights the importance of undertaking periodic and holistic reviews of terms and conditions, considering all terms which bind a consumer (including those that relate to a particular game).
2. Draw attention to “onerous” or “unusual” terms.  A central element of this case was that contractual terms seeking to overturn the consumer’s expectation that “what you see is what you get” are onerous and unusual, and therefore needed to be clearly signposted in order to be enforceable. Instead, the terms that Paddy Power sought to rely on were apparently buried in the middle of 45 pages of small print. The Judge also noted that the relevant clauses were not listed in the index of the Terms, were not referenced in the Game Rules, were not emphasised (e.g. in bold, capitals or through the use of explanatory clause headings) and were not referenced on screen when Durber placed the bet. Operators could consider preparing a summary of their terms and conditions which highlights or emphasises clauses which may be onerous or unexpected, and presenting this summary prominently to consumers at registration and when updates are made to the terms and conditions. For particularly important clauses, such as liability for errors clauses, operators could also consider including disclaimers as part of the customer journey that, for example, make clear that if there is a discrepancy between the animation and the RNG result, the RNG result prevails.
3. Explain to consumers that big wins are subject to a validation process.  The Judge in this case said: “Before ever reaching the need for an exclusion clause the Defendant could have put a validation clause into the Rules for large Jackpots which would have avoided the mischief.” Referring to Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited, the Judge suggested that the Camelot terms and conditions which made clear that wins over a certain amount were subject to a validation process would have been a better approach.
4. Minimise the number of different sets of terms.  The Judge in this case was critical of Paddy Power’s “complicated web of multiple documents” and that the written contract terms “consisted of multiple differently located documents which made it difficult for consumers to see the whole contract in one place at one time”. For best practice, operators should seek to minimise the number of different sets of terms that they have and, where multiple sets cannot easily be avoided, ensure that all of them are easily accessible and easy to navigate.
5. Beware exclusion clauses which are too broad. This case highlighted the need for terms and conditions, particularly exclusion clauses, to be drafted very clearly and precisely. The scope of Paddy Power’s exclusion clauses were found to be unfair because they were too broad – for example, Clause B2 appeared to purport to completely exclude Paddy Power’s liability even in the case of errors caused by their own negligence or recklessness, and even for valid wins (e.g. in this case it would have excluded Paddy Power’s obligation to pay out the Daily Jackpot (which they did award)). The Judge suggested that a clause which entitles an operator to avoid paying only the excess sum caused by the error may be acceptable. Further, Clause B1 (which sought to make the operator’s server result determinative) was also too broad as a “conclusive evidence clause”, as it would have applied even in the event of a fault with the RNG and also limited the player’s ability to challenge the accuracy of the result, which the Judge accepted might be ok for small bets and wins but not for wins of substance.

You can hear Anna Soilleux-Mills discussing this judgment as part of the iGaming Daily podcast here:  https://share.transistor.fm/s/9b4fd4c7

The full judgment can be accessed here.

Article co-authored by Lisa Franco, Trainee Solicitor at CMS