The UK and European gambling operator Paddy Power is fighting a legal action in the English High Court over a refusal to pay a customer who thought they had won a £1m jackpot when playing an online slot game*. 

Paddy Power asserts that the gambler won only £20,000, and that due to a mapping error in the software which affected the game's animations and therefore the images which the gambler was presented with when playing, images indicating a win of £1m were incorrect, and the game's server had only credited a win of £20,000. 

Paddy Power relies on its terms and conditions, which include a clause that it “will not be liable” for pay outs offered as a result of “systems or communication errors”. The gambler asserts the terms are unfair and unenforceable.

This type of dispute is not new to the English courts, and previous decisions have gone both ways. 

• In Longley v Paddy Power (which we wrote about here), Paddy Power successfully relied on its terms to reduce its pay out.
• In Goodram v Camelot (which we wrote above here), the then UK lottery-operator was similarly allowed to rely on its terms and conditions in refusing a pay out on a £4m winning scratch card. 
• In Green v Betfred (which were wrote about here), however, the operator was unable to rely on its terms when faced with a similar claim to that brought here, and was ordered to pay its customer £1.7m. 

Like the successful gambler in Green, the gambler has applied for summary judgment on her claim and an outcome is expected in the next few months. Meanwhile, the case is a salient reminder for operators to consider their terms and conditions and ensure they comply with the applicable legal framework.

* An Alice in Wonderland-themed online slot game, The Wild Hatter (if you were wondering about the image choice). The case is Durber -v- PPB Entertainment Ltd.