Winnings from online games: Why it can pay to take advice

Customers of bookmakers who play online games may sometimes be left wondering whether to celebrate their good fortune, or to return payments to the bookmaker when required to do so under the “terms and conditions” relating to that particular game.

A well-known high street bookmaker has recently asked customers to return sums in the tens of thousands to them, as they consider that the payouts have been due to a glitch in their operating system. Reportedly, a payment to one customer was in a “six-figure sum”.

Some customers have already withdrawn the amounts which were paid into their accounts, leaving the bookmaker to have to e-mail them, asking for the money to be returned. Customers have been offered the chance to retain 11% of their winnings, if they pay back the remaining sums paid to them.

Consumer Rights: Fair Terms

Under the Gaming Act 2005 a contract relating to gambling is enforceable. Prior to 2005, a bet was an unenforceable wager. The fairness and enforceability of contracts is subject to UK Consumer Law. This gives rise to the following factors in relation to how the issues relating to possible payouts of winnings in online gambling can be viewed:-

• The bookmaker can argue that since they have contracted with their customers, the Terms and conditions are part of the contract.
• Customers can point to the Consumer Right Act 2015, under which the terms of contracts must be fair and transparent. They can argue that it would be unfair for a bookmaker to reclaim winnings, after the payout of a “win” to its customers.
• The bookmaker may argue that a customer benefiting from a mistake which leads to large sums being paid into their accounts is Unjust Enrichment, much as if a Bank had mistakenly credited such sums to a customer’s bank account.

Precedents

Online gaming customers should consider that the following recent cases suggest that the demand for repayment of their winnings is not certain succeed: –

• Andrew Green v Petfre (Gibraltar) Ltd (t/a Betfred) [2021] EWHC 842 (QB); and
• Corinne Pearl Durber v PPB Entertainment Limited [2025] EWHC 498 (KB)

In the Green v Betfred case, Mr Green had an account with Betfred bookmakers. In January 2018 Mr Green played a game called “Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven Blackjack” on Betfred’s App. After playing for over 5 hours, his betting chips were worth £1.7 million. However, when he tried to withdraw his winning chips, he could not do so. Betfred advised that there had been a “glitch” in the game and so his winnings would not be paid to him.

In fact, what happened is that there was a development fault in the game, altering the odds, allowing Mr Green to achieve repeated jackpots in one game.

Mr Green issued a claim. Betfred argued that the terms of the contract excluded their liability to pay out the winnings, as there had been a software defect. However, Mr Green’s legal team argued that it was not the software which had malfunctioned but the game itself. Mr Green was entitled to a fair and transparent contract, as a consumer.

The court in the Green case determined that for Betfred to successfully exclude liability for paying winnings the terms would need to be clearer and the exclusion clause would need to have been drawn to Mr Green’s attention, for it to be incorporated into the contract. Mr Green won his case.

In the Corinne Durber v PPB (Paddy Power) case, Mr Durber played a “Wild Hatter” game on Paddy Power’s website. Upon spinning the jackpot wheel, the screen displayed that she had won the £1,097,132.71 “Monster Jackpot”, but only £20,265.14 was credited to her account.

Paddy Power argued it did not have to pay the Monster Jackpot, as despite what the screen showed, the software behind the screen had determined that she had only won the “Daily Jackpot” of £20,000. They argued that the outcome provided by the software was correct.

Paddy Power sought to rely on its terms and conditions, which were available online. Clause B1 of the Ts and Cs, stated, “in the event of a discrepancy between the results displayed on your computer and a game’s records on our server, our records shall be regarded a definitive”. Paddy Power also sought to exclude liability under Clause B2 for “systems or communications errors relating to the generation of any result, bet or any other element of a Game”.

Ms Durber issued a claim and succeeded, due to a priority clause in the Terms and Conditions, stating that in the event of inconsistency, the Rules took precedence over the Terms and conditions. Under the Rules, the sum won by the customer was what was displayed on the screen. Ms Durber won her case.

The Bottom Line

Given the recent legal precedents relating to the enforceability of contractual terms as between a bookmaker and its customer in relation to online gaming, any customers who are faced with demands for the repayment of winnings are strongly advised to seek urgent legal advice.