The High Court has recently considered a dispute arising from a miscommunication regarding the claimant’s winnings on an online game.
The claimant in Durber v PPB Entertainment Ltd [2025] EWHC 498 (KB) 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, the screen displayed she had won the “Monster Jackpot” which was stated as £1,097,132.71. The dispute revolved around the discrepancy between what was displayed on the claimant’s screen and the defendant’s server records which led to a significant reduction in the payout from the claimed Monster Jackpot of well over £1 million to a much smaller Daily Jackpot of £20,265.14. The claimant claimed the difference between this and the Monster Jackpot.
The defendant 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. It sought to rely on its terms and conditions and referred to the decision in Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd.
What did the court say?
The court ruled that the rules of the online gambling game took precedence over the terms and conditions. The rules explicitly stated that the outcome of the game, including the determination of the jackpot, was based on what was displayed on the claimant’s screen. This “what you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG) approach was central to the claimant’s understanding and expectation of the game.
The terms and conditions included a clause that purported to make the defendant’s server records definitive if there was a discrepancy between the screen display and the server records. The court found this clause to be inconsistent with the game rules which clearly indicated that the screen display took precedence. Consequently, the court held that this clause was unenforceable.
The defendant also sought to rely on an exclusion clause that purported to absolve them of liability for any errors, including those in the generation of game results. However, the court found that this clause did not cover the specific human error in programming that caused the discrepancy between the server records and the claimant’s screen display. The error in question was a mapping error in the software which was a direct result of human programming and not a system or communication error as envisaged by the exclusion clause.
The court also examined whether the relevant terms were properly incorporated into the contract. It concluded that the terms were unusual and onerous and that the defendant had failed to take reasonable steps to bring these terms to the claimant’s attention. The terms were buried within a lengthy document and were not adequately signposted, making it unreasonable to expect the claimant to have been aware of them.
Even if the terms had been properly incorporated, the court found them to be unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act requires that terms be fair and transparent and that they do not create a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. The court held that the terms in question failed this test, as they included a very wide limitation of liability. It said that a more focused disclaimer would have created less imbalance. The terms also contradicted the game rules, causing an imbalance.
Therefore, the court ruled that summary judgment should be entered for the claimant.
So what?
The court’s decision emphasises the importance of clarity and fairness in the terms and conditions of online gambling games and consumer-facing terms more generally. If you run online games, you need to clearly communicate your terms to consumers and also make sure that they are consistent with the rules of the game. Terms need to be fair and properly incorporated, especially those which aim to limit liability or alter the consumer’s understanding of the game outcomes. More widely, you need to make sure that your terms and rules hang together – it’s quite common for there to be different documents that affect the relationship with the consumer – but they need to be consistent and cross-referenced.
Readers may remember the case of Green v Betfair where the court ruled in Mr Green’s favour, saying that Betfair’s terms were not adequate to exempt Betfred from the obligation to pay out on an ostensibly winning bet or series of bets.
As the CMA gets greater powers in the coming weeks, businesses are advised to review their customer journeys and make sure that they comply with the law.
This report was first published on the Lewis Silkin website and is reproduced with permission
