On 5 March 2025, the High Court granted an application for summary judgment in Corrine Pearl Durber v PPB Entertainment Limited EWHC 498 (KB) (“Durber v PPB”)in favour of Durber, who was seeking to recover her £1 million prize following a game error whilst playing an online slot machine in October 2020. This may come as a surprise following the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal a year ago in favour of Camelot in Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd (“Parker v Camelot”) that it was only required to pay out a £10 prize rather than a £1 million prize to a customer subject to a similar game error.

In our previous blog, Match or no match: Camelot IWG Appeal dismissed, we summarised the facts of Parker v Camelot and analysed the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in agreeing with the High Court and dismissing the appeal. In this blog, we outline the facts of Durber v PPB and highlight the key points that distinguish the outcomes of the cases.

Background

In 18 October 2020, Durber placed a bet on an online game, ‘Wild Hatter’ (the “Game”), on PPB Entertainment Limited’s (“PPB”) PaddyPower website. The rules of the Game (the “Rules”) provided that it had 2 stages based on a combination of the old fruit machine reels (stage 1) and the old spin the wheel of fortune game (stage 2). In stage 1 of the Game, Durber was informed on her computer screen that she had won a jackpot prize and was moved to stage 2. Following a spin of the jackpot wheel, her screen revealed that she had won the “Monster Jackpot” just shy of £1.1m, as shown in the screenshot from the judgment:

However, Durber was later presented with a message stating that her win was £20,265.14, the ‘Daily Jackpot’, and no explanation for the change of sum was provided on the screen. As a result, PPB paid Durber the smaller Daily Jackpot win. Durber quickly complained to PPB and was told that the computer system which ran the Game made an error over the display because it had been mal-programmed (due to a coding error), and it should have pointed to the Daily Jackpot.

The parties’ arguments

Durber’s arguments:

• she relied upon the Rules of the Game, which clearly stated “spin the jackpot wheel to determine which of the offered jackpot tiers will be won”, meaning that when she spun the wheel and won the Monster Jackpot, she was entitled to that prize;
• that clauses B1 and B2 were not incorporated into the terms and conditions (“T&Cs”) because they were “onerous and unusual” and were not sufficiently brought to her attention, and that they were unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”); and
• even if clauses B1 and B2 were incorporated, fair and enforceable, (i) the Rules took priority over the T&Cs in the event of inconsistency (pursuant to the preamble to Part B of the T&Cs) and (ii) clause B2 did not cover human errors.

PPB’s arguments:

• in reliance on the T&Cs, PPB was not obliged to pay Durber the Monster Jackpot because:
  • clause B1 stipulated that the outcome of a customer’s play was determined by the random number generator (“RNG”) software and was definitive over any screen display, and it determined that Durber had only won the Daily Jackpot; and
  • clause B2, the exclusion clause, excluded PPB’s liability to pay customers in instances where there is a “system or communication error”.
• PPB also sought to rely on arguments that clauses B1 and B2 are not ‘onerous or unusual’, but are commonplace and usual in the industry, and “did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the consumer’s detriment”.

Mr Justice Ritchie’s judgment

The High Court granted summary judgment in favour of Durber on the following basis:

(1) The Rules of the Game confirmed that the display on screen determines what a customer wins i.e. ‘what you see is what you get’ (“WYSIWYG”).

(2) The preamble of the T&Cs stated the Rules took priority over the T&Cs. Therefore, Durber had won the Monster Jackpot according to the Rules, which took priority over clause B1 which stated that the outcome is determined by the RNG.

(3) The scope of clause B2 did not cover human errors in programming the screen display of the Game and hence did not entitle PPB to exclude liability for Durber’s Monster Jackpot win shown on her screen.

(4) Clauses B1 & B2 were not incorporated into the T&Cs because “they were unusual and onerous” and were not adequately brought to Durber’s attention.

(5) Even if clauses B1&B2 were incorporated, they were too broad and therefore unenforceable under the CRA 2015.

Comparisons between the Parker v Camelot case and Durber v PPB case

The game rules

• Parker v Camelot: the gambling operator rightly relied on its game procedures which stated the winning numbers would be the numbers highlighted and circled in green. In this case, the display showed that the customer had matched two different numbers; number 15, which would have resulted in a win of £10 and was flashing with a corresponding message to confirm the win, and number 1, which would have resulted in a win of £1m but there were no flashing lights or messages to reflect this. Lady Justice Andrews, in providing the leading judgment, explained that it was clear in the game rules that in order to win the prize, the consumer needed to click through to the end of the game by clicking “FINISH”, which showed the outcome was a £10 win, and regardless, “all of this should have been obvious to any reasonable player of the even if they did not read the Game Procedures”.
• Durber v PPB: Durber’s screen showed the wheel spinning and then it stopped with the win arrow pointing to the Monster Jackpot which lit up and showed over £1 million in winnings.

Both consumers in each case were able to rely on the principle of ‘WYSIWYG’, and Justice Ritchie pointed out that “consumers expect, when playing online, that what their screen tells them is correct, true and reliable”. This highlights the importance of online gambling operators upholding the principle of WYSIWYG, and ensure it is reflected by their terms, to maintain consumer confidence that they will get fair and honest results with the operator they choose to spend money with.

Construction of the game rules and terms of contract

• Parker v Camelot: the operator had both clear rules of the game and terms and conditions, for instance, there was a limitation of liability clause clearly covering defects in the game, the claiming and validation process which the operator could control was sufficiently explained, and the game procedures gave examples of how winning numbers would be displayed.
• Durber v PPB: the operator also had set out the game Rules and had certain provisions in the T&Cs, however the exclusion clause (B2) did not specifically cover human error in software programming, such as the human error that caused the discrepancy between the server records and Durber’s screen display. The High Court made a direct comparison with Parker v Camelot and pointed out that even the use of a validation clause for large jackpots (i.e. wins over a certain level would need validation) would have “avoided the mischief” of an exclusion clause altogether.

Therefore, the contra proferentem rule of construction only required application in Durber v PPB, as the operator in Parker v Camelot ensured there was no doubtaround the rules and terms. As a reminder, the contra proferentem rule of construction states: “if there is any doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail“. PPB should have explicitly excluded liability for such human error if that was a possibility of it resulting in the software programming error; the doubt around the exclusion clause meant it had to be construed against PPB. This highlights that care must be taken around clauses that set out the order of precedence in the event of inconsistencies, to ensure the right documents are being prioritised in the right situations. Failing this, inclusion of a validation process for larger wins over a certain level would bring greater clarity around such jackpots for both parties.

Incorporation of the terms of contract

• Parker v Camelot: It was clear that the consumer would see, upon opening her online account, that there were overarching terms and conditions, as well as specific terms relating to the game rules. As the consumer had also been invited to read and confirm her acceptance of any significant updates to the terms by the method of clicking an online screen box indicating agreement, there was a clear general incorporation of the 3 sets of documents containing terms. It was accepted by the Court of Appeal that although a “click-wrap” procedure to accepting terms would not be sufficient to incorporate all the terms of every case of online operators, it was sufficient in this case.
• Durber v PPB: the full contract terms were a combination of the Rules, the T&Cs and multiple other separate documents. Durber asserted that the terms ran to 44 pages of closely typed small print with numerous hyperlinks to other pages and that, given the “draconian nature of the limitations”, no reasonable consumer could be expected to read and understand the terms. Specifically, the terms relied upon by PPB were not sufficiently highlighted to Durber, prior to her opening the account and on each subsequent occasion she used PPB’s online services. In contrast to Parker v Camelot, the High Court agreed with Durber and found that PPB had a “complicated web of multiple documents”, and the relevant exclusions clauses were “unusual” and “onerous” and therefore, by their nature, were not incorporated into the T&Cs.

The criticism from Justice Ritchie in Durber v PPB carries significant weight for gambling operators as a useful reminder that any ‘unusual’ or ‘onerous’ clauses, particularly those that are potentially detrimental to consumers, must be specifically flagged or signposted to consumers in an obvious way, or the operator becomes at risk of key provisions, such as an exclusion of liability for a software error, being struck down as unenforceable.

Enforceability of the terms of contract

• Parker v Camelot: as the consumer had “a real opportunity of becoming acquainted with the terms of the contract before she clicked the ‘I Accept’ button”, the Court of Appeal agreed that the network of contractual provisions was drafted clearly and sufficiently signposted. Therefore, there the terms did not cause a “significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer” pursuant to Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
• Durber v PPB: it was considered that even if the clauses were incorporated into the contract, they were not – due to their breadth – fair or enforceable under the CRA 2015. In particular, Justice Ritchie highlighted that clause B1 makes PPB’s internal records supreme, as evidence of whether there was a win, therefore rendering what Durber sees on her screen irrelevant. Justice Ritchie concluded that “this clause is objectively unusual and unexpected for any consumer playing this game under these Rules who would expect the screen to provide both the determination of or at least valid prima facie evidence of the win”.

The court’s assessment of fairness and transparency of the operator’s T&Cs through the application of consumer protection laws, in a way, discarded the relevance of whether clauses B1 and B2 were sufficiently incorporated in the T&Cs. This highlights the importance of operator’s terms (i) being transparent and complying with section 68 of the CRA 2015, and (ii) being fit for purpose for digital content provided to consumers, as required by section 35 of the CRA 2015.

Lessons learned

By following precedent, the High Court Durber v PPB ruling has provided further clarity where gambling operators are found defending themselves against consumer claims in relation to software errors and malfunctions.

Whilst the nature of the dispute was similar to Parker v Camelot, in that both consumers experienced discrepancies between the prize displayed on their screens and the winning amounts recognized by the operators, it is clear why the High Court ruled in favour of the consumer in Durber v PPB. This ruling provides another useful reminder for operators of the importance of clarity in game procedures, contract provisions and scope of exclusion clauses, handling conflicts between documents, and bringing ‘onerous’ terms to the attention of consumers.

Please get in touch with us if you require any assistance reviewing and/or drafting website terms and conditions, rules of play or other commercial gambling contracts.