High Court Judge Orders Paddy Power to Pay £1 Million Jackpot to UK Gardener

High Court Judge Orders Paddy Power to Pay £1 Million Jackpot to UK Gardener

High Court judge Mr. Justice Ritchie has ruled in favour of a gardener from Gloucestershire, UK, who was denied a £1 million payout by Paddy Power. The court ordered Paddy Power to pay Corrine Durber £1,076,867.57 prize she rightfully won after citing a computer glitch was responsible for the error.

What Happened?​

In October 2020, Durber was playing Paddy Power’s Wild Hatter game when her screen displayed she had won the Monster Jackpot of £1,097,132.71. However, Paddy Power credited her account with £20,265.14, claiming a system error displayed the incorrect jackpot.

The company insisted the random number generator had awarded her the smaller Daily Jackpot. Due to a programming error, the larger jackpot was displayed on the iPad screen.

A software mapping error caused a discrepancy between the outcome determined by the game’s random number generator (RNG) and the result displayed on the player’s screen.

Ruled in Favour​

Determined to claim her rightful winnings, Durber sued PPB Entertainment Limited for breach of contract. Mr. Justice Ritchie ruled in her favour. He emphasised that businesses must ensure the information displayed to customers is accurate and honoured.. He stated,

“Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct.

“When a trader puts all the risk on a consumer for its own recklessness, negligence, errors, inadequate digital services and inadequate testing, that appears onerous to me.” ​

After the judgment, Durber expressed relief and, furthermore, criticised Paddy Power for the situation. She remarked,

“I will never bet with them ever again, and I advise others to be very careful too.” ​

A comment from Paddy Power

Paddy Power stated, “We always strive to provide the best possible customer experience and take pride in our fairness.”

“We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment.”

Leave a comment