Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
A gardener who was told by Paddy Power her £1m jackpot from an online game was just a computer error has won a High Court case over her winnings.
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 - a two-part game involving a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune.
After spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the "Monster Jackpot", which was stated as £1,097,132.71.
But the gambling giant only paid out £20,265 telling her she had won the smaller "Daily Jackpot", with the difference attributed to a programming error with the game's display.
Mrs Durber sued PPB Entertainment Limited, which trades as Paddy Power and Betfair, for breach of contract and for the rest of her winnings, based on what she was shown on screen.
In a judgment on Wednesday, Mr Justice Ritchie granted summary judgment in her favour, meaning she won her case without a trial.
He said: "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."
PPB had said that the outcome was determined by a random number generator, which had said she had only won the daily jackpot, but an error affected the animations of the game and showed her the wrong result.
Mr Justice Ritchie said that the idea of "what you see is what you get" was central to the game.
He continued in a 62-page ruling: "Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct.
"The same expectation probably applies when customers go into a physical casino and play roulette.
"They expect the house to pay out on the roulette wheel if they bet on number 13 and the ball lands on number 13."
The judge found that the result from the random number generator was different from the result on screen due to human error in mapping the software, which had affected 14 plays over 48 days.
'Relieved and happy'
Mrs Durber said said she was "relieved and happy" that the judge has confirmed she won "fairly and squarely" £1m from Paddy Power.
She added: "But why couldn't Paddy Power pay-up straight away instead of putting me through this legal torment?"
Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Paddy Power, said: "We always strive to provide the best customer experience possible and pride ourselves on fairness.
"We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gl2n2n14o
Corrine Durber, from Gloucestershire, played the Wild Hatter game in October 2020 - a two-part game involving a fruit machine and a wheel of fortune.
After spinning the jackpot wheel, Mrs Durber's iPad Screen displayed she had won the "Monster Jackpot", which was stated as £1,097,132.71.
But the gambling giant only paid out £20,265 telling her she had won the smaller "Daily Jackpot", with the difference attributed to a programming error with the game's display.
Mrs Durber sued PPB Entertainment Limited, which trades as Paddy Power and Betfair, for breach of contract and for the rest of her winnings, based on what she was shown on screen.
In a judgment on Wednesday, Mr Justice Ritchie granted summary judgment in her favour, meaning she won her case without a trial.
He said: "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."
PPB had said that the outcome was determined by a random number generator, which had said she had only won the daily jackpot, but an error affected the animations of the game and showed her the wrong result.
Mr Justice Ritchie said that the idea of "what you see is what you get" was central to the game.
He continued in a 62-page ruling: "Objectively, customers would want and expect that what was to be shown to them on screen to be accurate and correct.
"The same expectation probably applies when customers go into a physical casino and play roulette.
"They expect the house to pay out on the roulette wheel if they bet on number 13 and the ball lands on number 13."
The judge found that the result from the random number generator was different from the result on screen due to human error in mapping the software, which had affected 14 plays over 48 days.
'Relieved and happy'
Mrs Durber said said she was "relieved and happy" that the judge has confirmed she won "fairly and squarely" £1m from Paddy Power.
She added: "But why couldn't Paddy Power pay-up straight away instead of putting me through this legal torment?"
Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Paddy Power, said: "We always strive to provide the best customer experience possible and pride ourselves on fairness.
"We deeply regret this unfortunate case and are reviewing the judgment."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gl2n2n14o
Show More
Superb news tbh…..then another half a million for the vomit inducing jockey challenge…..which they probably regret tbf
Would it not be right and proper for paddy who strive to give the customer a great and fair experience to add on the interest which this lady has lost out on and not to mention the stress caused and whilst I’m sick of hearing about stress I would imagine this would be a genuine case for stress related compensation.
What a great result! Well deserved. Sure they will appeal though.
This is wonderful news for players of electronic gaming machines. I hope this judgement is the definitive precedent for any future welching by online bookies citing software or hardware malfunction or not acting as one; this decision "rests on what you see is what you get", and not something else as Paddy has chosen as an excuse for not paying out the full jackpot amount displayed on the screen immediately after.
I hope this lady gets a judgement that includes interests on the jackpot amount since that momentous winning day.
I hope this lady gets a judgement that includes interests on the jackpot amount since that momentous winning day.
So it was a software mapping error. The game played out the wrong graphic. 14 times apparently, so where are the other 13 winners? Although of course if they'd won the million then the monster jackpot would have been reset and Corrine would have won much less.
Mr Justice Ritchie granted summary judgment in her favour, meaning she won her case without a trial.
We all may be cheering, but these summary judgements, a judge deciding whether or not someone, or in this instance a business, should be allowed a full and fair trial.
What could possibly go wrong, eh?
Regular readers may recall a 'summary judgement' came up on another thread, which I won't go into here, but who knows, maybe time will tell.
We all may be cheering, but these summary judgements, a judge deciding whether or not someone, or in this instance a business, should be allowed a full and fair trial.
What could possibly go wrong, eh?
Regular readers may recall a 'summary judgement' came up on another thread, which I won't go into here, but who knows, maybe time will tell.
Just a convenient but lame excuse by Paddy to cite software error mapping error. The lady was the player, and not the producer, the procurer or installer of the software and hardware; the lady was a totally independent and unrelated entity. As such, it was injudicious for Paddy to "concoct" an excuse for non-payment of the full amount.
But, Paddy being a bookie will try not to pay a jackpot. Just typical!
But, Paddy being a bookie will try not to pay a jackpot. Just typical!
I wonder if the lady took her case to IBAS or any independent adjudicator prior to the legal route.
I wonder if the lady took her case to IBAS or any independent adjudicator prior to the legal route.
I think there's a £10k ceiling on the IBAS process
I think there's a £10k ceiling on the IBAS process
It is actually bonkers. What if a blip showed £100M ? £1BN ? It can't literally be what you see is what you get, as with all programming there is an exposure to human error. In this case it's the correct overall decision, from what is in the public domain.
Open season for software engineers to help their friends win a few quid.
Cider:
It is actually bonkers. What if a blip showed £100M ? £1BN ? It can't literally be what you see is what you get, as with all programming there is an exposure to human error. In this case it's the correct overall decision, from what is in the public domain.
I reckon the book could claim a palp on £100m or £1bn as the jackpot would be displayed as a£1m and if it was more than it would be an obvious error
It is actually bonkers. What if a blip showed £100M ? £1BN ? It can't literally be what you see is what you get, as with all programming there is an exposure to human error. In this case it's the correct overall decision, from what is in the public domain.
I reckon the book could claim a palp on £100m or £1bn as the jackpot would be displayed as a£1m and if it was more than it would be an obvious error
i get the same treatment everytime i click my mouse..can i go to the old bailey and complain they are all ran sid.
Well done, hope they pay up quickly, without appeal.
Have the other 13 known cases been compensated?
Have the other 13 known cases been compensated?
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch and provides a warning to all other potential welchers ; If YOU make a mistake YOU pay for it: THAT'S LIFE. En passant, Paddy Power; are you paying your programmers enough?
Entirely predictable outcome; surprised that PP took it so far.
Other retailers would honour their obligation and certainly any error in their pricing to maintain customer loyalty. But, bookies are scums and legalised thieves; they'll do the opposite. They'll refuse to pay. Then possibly sort legal advice and court for a delay hoping the plaintiff will die prior.
On the other hand every bookie will ply you with their crack cocaine ie slots, hoping you will develop an addiction. Then take your last penny regardless.
On the other hand every bookie will ply you with their crack cocaine ie slots, hoping you will develop an addiction. Then take your last penny regardless.
The totally useless and spineless IBAS had told the lady “no chance”.
Given the dynamics of the case - PP case was the Jackpots, Monster and Daily, was "mapped" incorrectly by a programmer it's entirely possible that there is a Monster jackpot winner who got paid out the Daily (lower) amount by reason of that mis-mapping.
I'm anticipating PP staff are as I type looking for such a person(s)
I'm anticipating PP staff are as I type looking for such a person(s)
Given the dynamics of the case - PP case was the Jackpots, Monster and Daily, was "mapped" incorrectly by a programmer it's entirely possible that there is a Monster jackpot winner who got paid out the Daily (lower) amount by reason of that mis-mapping.
I'm anticipating PP staff are as I type looking for such a person(s)
I'm anticipating PP staff are as I type looking for such a person(s)
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539