The Case: Durber v PPB Entertainment Ltd (2025)
The recent High Court case of Durber v PPB Entertainment Ltd ([2025] EWHC 498 (KB)) has caught the attention of businesses and consumers alike. At the heart of the dispute was a £1 million jackpot win that turned into a bitter legal battle over terms and conditions, software errors, and consumer rights.
What Happened?
Corrine Pearl Durber, the claimant, placed a bet on Paddy Power’s online gambling website on 18 October 2020, playing a game called The Wild Hatter. The game featured a two-stage process: first, a fruit machine-style reel, and second, a spin-the-wheel jackpot round.
Durber was informed on-screen that she had won the Monster Jackpot, worth £1,097,132.71. The wheel spun, landed on the Monster Jackpot segment, and lit up—seemingly confirming her win.
The PaddyPower Monster Jackpot
However, Paddy Power only credited her account with £20,265.14, the amount for a much smaller Daily Jackpot.
When Durber challenged this, Paddy Power argued that the game had suffered from a “mapping error”—an issue in the software that mistakenly displayed the wrong jackpot outcome. The company pointed to its terms and conditions, specifically clauses that stated:
- The game’s random number generator (RNG) determines the true outcome.
- If there is any discrepancy between what is displayed on a user’s screen and the company’s internal records, the company’s records are final and definitive.
- The company is not liable for “systems or communication errors” and may void affected plays.
Durber sued, claiming that what she was shown on-screen should be binding, as the rules of the game stated that spinning the jackpot wheel determined the prize.
The Court’s Decision
The High Court ruled in favour of Durber. The judge found that:
- The game rules took precedence over Paddy Power’s buried terms and conditions.
- The company’s terms, which allowed it to override what was shown on a player’s screen, were not adequately brought to consumers’ attention.
- Certain clauses in the terms were potentially unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as they created a significant imbalance in rights, to the detriment of the consumer.
This decision reinforces the principle that businesses cannot rely on deeply buried terms and conditions to override consumer expectations, especially when those terms are not made sufficiently clear at the point of contract.
Lessons for Businesses: The Danger of Hidden Terms and Conditions
The Paddy Power case highlights an important legal and ethical issue for businesses: terms and conditions are not an absolute shield against liability. Here’s what businesses can learn from the ruling:
1. Terms and Conditions Must Be Clear and Transparent
Hiding key terms deep within a long document does not guarantee protection. If a term is particularly onerous or unusual, it must be explicitly highlighted to the consumer at the time of the contract, not buried in pages of small print.
2. What Consumers See Matters
The court’s reasoning suggests a strong “What You See Is What You Get” (WYSIWYG) principle. If an online platform visually represents a specific outcome – such as a jackpot win – then the business cannot later claim that a hidden clause in the terms overrides what was displayed. Clearer disclaimers at the point of play might have prevented this dispute.
3. Consumer Protection Laws Can Override Unfair Terms
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, businesses cannot include terms that create a significant imbalance between the parties. This case serves as a warning that any term allowing a company to unilaterally change the outcome of a transaction after the fact is likely to be considered unfair.
4. Businesses Must Take Responsibility for Software Errors
Paddy Power’s defence was that a software error caused the incorrect display. However, the court rejected the idea that this was a sufficient excuse. If an error occurs due to faulty programming, it is the responsibility of the business to rectify it in a fair manner, rather than shifting the risk entirely onto the consumer.
5. Industry Standards May Not Be Enough
Paddy Power argued that similar terms are commonplace in the gambling industry. However, the judge dismissed this, reinforcing that industry norms do not override legal consumer protections. Businesses cannot simply point to “everyone else does it” as a defence.
Final Thoughts
The Durber v Paddy Power case is an important decision in consumer rights, sending a clear message to businesses: hidden terms cannot be used as an escape clause for unfair practices. Companies that rely on unclear or one-sided terms should take this as a wake-up call to review their contracts and ensure that consumers are fully informed before entering an agreement.
For businesses, this case is a reminder to be transparent, fair, and clear. For consumers, it reinforces the importance of challenging unfair terms and standing up for their rights.
Would your business survive a legal challenge to its terms and conditions? Now might be a good time to review them before you end up in court.
Let us review your contracts and policies before you end up paying out the £1m bet!
