High Court Orders Paddy Power to Pay £1M Jackpot

A landmark legal ruling has shaken the gambling industry.

The High Court has ruled that Paddy Power must honour a £1M jackpot won by Corrine Durber, despite the operator’s claim of a technical malfunction.

This decision challenges the reliance on terms and conditions that allow operators to void payouts due to software errors.

Legal experts warn this could set a precedent, leading to more player disputes and stricter regulatory scrutiny for gambling companies.

Paddy Power Ordered to Pay £1M Jackpot as Legal Experts Warn of Industry-Wide Impact

Key Points:

1. High Court Rules in Favor of Player in £1M Jackpot Dispute

   • Paddy Power must pay a £1,097,132.71 jackpot after the court rejected its argument that a game malfunction voided the win.

2. Legal Experts Warn of Broader Implications for Operators

   • The ruling emphasizes the need for fair and transparent terms and conditions, ensuring that operators uphold advertised payouts.

3. Future Claims Against Operators Could Increase

   • The judgment may encourage more players to challenge denied winnings, raising concerns about industry-wide legal exposure.

Paddy Power Ordered to Pay £1M Jackpot After Legal Battle

The UK High Court has ruled that Paddy Power must honour a £1M jackpot payout to a player who won a major prize but was later told the winnings were void due to a technical error.

The case, Durber v Paddy Power, is being closely watched by legal experts, as it could reshape how operators handle software malfunctions and customer disputes.

Paddy Power argued that a display error incorrectly showed the “Monster Jackpot” win and that its terms and conditions allowed it to only pay the smaller “Daily Jackpot” of £20,265.14.

However, Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed this argument, stating that players reasonably expect the results displayed on-screen to be accurate and final—just as they would in a land-based casino.

Legal Experts Say the Ruling Could Set a Dangerous Precedent

Paul Kanolik, Partner at Ellis Jones Solicitors, believes this case will influence future gambling disputes, especially concerning software errors.

He noted that:

• Operators cannot automatically void winnings due to technical malfunctions.
• Terms and conditions must be fair, transparent, and clearly communicated.
• Gambling companies should review their policies to avoid future legal battles.

Kanolik compared the ruling to the 2021 Betfred case, where a player successfully sued for a £1.7M payout after a software glitch led to a denied jackpot.

“The judgment in Durber v Paddy Power shows that gambling operators may not necessarily be able to avoid paying out the winnings portrayed on-screen in those erroneous circumstances by relying on their terms and conditions.”

“This is a stark reminder for the gambling industry that their terms and conditions must be fair, and any restrictive clauses must be clearly brought to customers’ attention.”

More Jackpot Disputes Could Follow

Why This Matters:

• Operators may now face increased scrutiny over how they handle customer disputes.
• Players who were previously denied winnings due to technical glitches may now feel emboldened to take legal action.
• Regulatory bodies, such as the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), could impose stricter requirements on fairness and transparency.

Potential Industry Fallout:

• Paddy Power’s parent company, Flutter UKI, is reviewing the judgment, and industry insiders expect operators to tighten compliance measures.
• The ruling may lead to changes in terms and conditions across the industry, ensuring clearer consumer protections.

A Wake-Up Call for Gambling Operators

The High Court’s ruling in Durber v Paddy Power is a game-changer for the gambling industry.

It sets a legal precedent that operators cannot simply void winnings based on software errors—especially if their games display the prize as legitimate.

Operators must act now to review their terms, improve transparency, and ensure compliance to avoid similar costly legal battles.

As more players become aware of this ruling, the industry could face a wave of new claims, forcing operators to rethink their approach to customer disputes.

Paddy Power’s legal battle may be over, but the impact of this decision is just beginning.