Legal briefing | 13 Mar 2025 |

B2C online terms: another million pound mistake

Paddy Power's consumer terms and conditions failed to protect it against having to pay out over £1 million after an online game mistakenly indicated that a player had won a "Monster Jackpot". We discuss what lessons can be drawn from this dispute and two previous cases involving similar claims for million pound wins. We also look at the wider implications for B2C contracts, beyond the sphere of online games.

What happened in this case?

Corrine Durber was playing an online fruit machine-style game when she was informed that she had won a jackpot prize. She was invited to spin a jackpot wheel, which landed on the "Monster Jackpot", worth just over £1 million. Paddy Power argued that this was caused by a software error and the display should have shown a win of just over £20K (the "Daily Jackpot") – which was what had been recorded on Paddy Power's servers. It relied on its terms and conditions, which stated that the server records were definitive (even if they conflicted with what was displayed on screen). Mrs Durber argued that this was at odds with the game rules, which said that the prize would be determined by spinning the jackpot wheel – the result of which would be displayed on screen. The game rules also stated that they took precedence over any conflicting terms.

The court agreed with Mrs Durber that she was entitled to rely on what she had seen on screen and the game rules took precedence over the terms relied on by Paddy Power. In case that was wrong, it also considered two further issues, concluding that the terms relied on by Paddy Power:

did not form part of the contract with Mrs Durber, as they were onerous and required special attention to be drawn to them (which had not been done); and
were unfair and therefore unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (so even if they did form part of the contract, Paddy Power could not rely on them).

Hasn't this kind of thing happened before?

Yes it has – and we've covered these disputes in previous briefings:

You win some…. In Green v Betfred (2021), a player of an online game thought he had won £1.7 million after a software error resulted in him being awarded more "trophy cards" than should ever have been available to him (had the game functioned correctly). His "win" was upheld, with the court finding that the clauses relied on by Betfred (much like those relied on by Paddy Power) were not properly incorporated into the contract – and even if they had been, they were unfair.
You lose some…. In Parker-Grennan v Camelot (2024), a player of an online game thought she had won £1 million because a software glitch caused her screen to display numbers corresponding to those needed to win the jackpot prize – although other elements of the same display indicated that she had only won £10. Her "win" was not upheld because (among other things) the game rules made it clear that the player had to click "Finish", at which point their winnings would be confirmed (and the display duly confirmed a win of only £10). We've also produced a short video explainer on this case.

What are the key lessons of these cases?

For consumer-facing businesses generally, the key lessons are that reams of detailed terms won't protect you at all unless they:

are properly drawn to the consumer's attention (if they are not, then they won't be properly incorporated and won't bind the consumer); and
comply with the transparency and fairness requirements in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (if they are not, then once again, the consumer will not be bound by them).

Of course, this is far easier said than done; as a recent Ofcom study has shown, getting consumers to engage with online contract terms is not straightforward. However, Camelot provides a practical example where the court took the view that terms had been well presented, using hyperlinks and drop-downs to make them easier to read, and met the statutory requirements on transparency and fairness. Where possible, look at simplifying your terms – because that is likely to improve their chances of being enforceable. If lengthy terms are unavoidable (for example, because a variety of complex services are being provided), consider measures such as short summaries to highlight the key points (ideally with a visual element e.g. icons etc), accompanied by a link to the full terms. There are also various techniques derived from behavioural science and potential technological solutions which may be worth considering – do contact us if you'd like to discuss any of these.

Key lessons for providers of online games

Additional lessons for providers of online games and similar software-dependent products include the following:

Well drafted game rules can provide important protection: both Paddy Power and Camelot highlight the importance that the courts place on game rules. Although this worked against the online game provider in Paddy Power, Camelot shows how rules can be structured to offer more protection (Camelot's rules required the player to click "Finish" at which point their prize was confirmed – and here the software worked correctly and displayed only £10).
Independent verification: in both Betfred and Paddy Power, the courts expressed concern about the fairness of terms allowing the online game provider to simply declare that an apparent win was void due to an error. As we suggested in our briefing on Betfred, it may be worth considering involvement of an independent expert on this type of issue.
Contracts with software providers: where possible, ensure that contracts with software providers provide scope for at least some recovery if software does not work as intended due to e.g. negligence on the part of programmers, resulting in unintended payouts.

How we can help

Our specialist team has considerable experience of advising a wide variety of businesses on B2C contracts. In particular, we aim to bridge the gap between abstract legal principles and practical implementation. We are often assisted by input from our award-winning Legal Technology team, giving our lawyers a valuable insight into how legal advice can be translated into pragmatic solutions that will work effectively in an online environment. Last but not least, don't forget that on 6 April 2025, a new consumer law enforcement regime will come into force – which will significantly raise the stakes when it comes to infringements of consumer law.

Read Louisa Chambers Profile