£1m payout by Paddy Power after failing to integrate terms and conditions effectively

On 5 March 2025, the High Court in England and Wales held that a consumer was entitled to her £1m ‘Monster Jackpot’ due to inconsistencies created by a multi-document contract.

Background

In October 2020, Corrine Durber played the Wild Hatter online slot game on Paddy Power’s platform. The game displayed a “Monster Jackpot” win totalling £1,097,132.71 on her screen. However, due to a system error, only £20,265.14 was credited to her account. Paddy Power cited a programming malfunction as the cause.

Legal proceedings

Durber brought legal proceedings against PPB Entertainment Ltd, operating as Paddy Power, for breach of contract and for the rest of her winnings based on what she was shown on screen. The High Court ruled in her favour, ordering the full £1m payout. The court found an inconsistency between Paddy Power’s standard terms and conditions and the specific rules for the game.

When Paddy Power and Betfair merged in 2016, they combined various terms and conditions and game rules into one large document, which included hyperlinked and non-hyperlinked Rules and links to supplier documents as well. The game rules stated, “what you see on screen is what you get”, while the terms and conditions said the result would be determined by random number generator software. The court ruled that the game rules prevailed, entitling Durber to the full amount shown on her screen.  

The judge criticised Paddy Power’s reliance on the 45-page terms and conditions document to justify the refusal. In this case, the failure to align all parts of the multi-document contract resulted in severe financial repercussions for Paddy Power.

Lessons for businesses

This case serves as a cautionary tale for businesses, highlighting the critical importance of:

1. Flagging significant terms prominently

Key terms should be easily accessible, concise and clearly presented to ensure transparency and minimise ambiguity.  

2. Ensuring consistency in terms and conditions

Consistency in T&Cs is vital to avoid contradictions that could lead to legal challenges. Incorporating a priority provision to address potential conflicts between different clauses ensures that the terms function appropriately by providing clear guidance on which provisions prevail in the event of ambiguity.

3. Conducting thorough reviews of all terms and conditions

After significant events such as mergers and acquisitions, changes in law, and substantial changes in products or services, it’s important to review and update T&Cs. This ensures that the terms accurately reflect current business operations and comply with new legal requirements.

For more information on this case, please a member of our Commercial & Technology team.

Date published: 24 March 2025