The recent authority of Corrine Pearl Durber v PPB Entertainment Limited [2025] EWHC 498 (KB) is by no means a landmark decision for the law of contract in England & Wales.

Nevertheless, the case seems emblematic of the shift in judicial attitude within the gambling industry regarding the application and incorporation of contractual terms in online games.

On broader reading, the case may denote a softening of the traditionally intransigent position of the law of contract in relation to consumer contracts and online gambling.

Find a link to the full judgement here: https://shorturl.at/VJjv6.

Background

On the 18th of October 2020, the claimant (Mrs Durber) was playing ‘The Wild Hatter’ on her iPad. The game consisted of two stages: the first being a fruit machine and the second a fortune wheel. To win a prize, players had to be successful in both stages.

The rules of the game stated: “Spin the jackpot wheel to determine which of the offered jackpot tiers will be won”. Upon clicking “Spin”, the animation indicated that Durber had won the “Monster Jackpot”, worth £1,097,132.71.

However, Durber was paid only the ‘Daily Jackpot’, a difference of over £1 million. Paddy Power attempted to rely on their terms and conditions to avoid liability, asserting that the result on screen had been generated by a mapping error affecting the game’s animations.

The standard terms by which Paddy Power sought to exculpate culpability were as follows: “You fully accept and agree that random number generator software will determine all outcomes of Games on the Games Website. 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 as definitive” (clause B1).

“In the event of systems or communications errors relating to the generation of any result, bet settlement or any other element of a Game, we will not be liable to you as a result of any such errors and we reserve the right to void all related bets and plays on the Game in question” (clause B2).

Durber sued Paddy Power, for breach of contract, demanding her winnings based on what she was shown on screen.

The Decision

In the High Court, Justice Ritchie found in favour of Mrs Durber, concluding that she was contractually entitled to the “Monster Jackpot” as indicated by the game’s visual animation. Central to the judgment was the interpretation of the game rules and the consumer’s reasonable expectations. The court emphasised that, in the absence of a clear and conspicuous disclaimer, consumers are entitled to rely on what is displayed on their screens – particularly when that display represents a final game outcome. Drawing an analogy to physical casino environments, the judge observed that players in both digital and real-world contexts expect transparency and reliability in the results presented to them.

On the issue of contractual terms, the court ruled that clauses B1 and B2 – through which Paddy Power sought to disclaim liability for display errors and defer to backend records – were neither properly incorporated nor enforceable. Justice Ritchie applied the principle from Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd, which holds that onerous or unusual terms must be fairly and reasonably brought to the other party’s attention. In this case, the exclusion clauses were embedded in general terms and conditions, accessible via a link on the website, but not clearly highlighted or explained in a manner that would alert a reasonable consumer to their significance – particularly in relation to jackpot outcomes exceeding £1 million.

Even if the clauses had been successfully incorporated, the court found they would have been unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Specifically, the clauses failed the fairness test under section 62, which requires terms not to create a significant imbalance to the consumer’s detriment. The judge held the terms were overly broad, granting the operator excessive discretion to void plays and disregard game outcomes without clear limitation or procedural fairness. The decision thus affirms a more protective stance towards consumers in the digital gambling space, recognising both the imbalance of power and the unique vulnerabilities that arise in fast-paced, gamified environments.

Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries

In Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd, the claimant played an online ‘instant win’ National Lottery game and was shown an animation indicating that she had won £1 million. Camelot refused to pay the prize, explaining that due to a technical issue, the graphic display had been incorrect. The actual prize determined by the backend system was only £10. The dispute centered on whether the animation gave rise to a legitimate contractual entitlement, and whether Camelot could rely on its terms and conditions to avoid liability.

The Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in favour of Camelot, finding that the contract terms had been validly incorporated into the agreement between the parties. In particular, the court noted that the website required players to confirm they had read and accepted the terms and conditions before proceeding. This acceptance was reinforced by the presence of a prominently displayed checkbox and a hyperlink to the terms next to a clear “accept” button. The court applied the established principle from Parker v South Eastern Railway Co that particularly onerous or unusual terms must be fairly brought to the user’s attention – but found that, in this case, the presentation was sufficient.

Nevertheless, the court expressed unease with the current state of the law around term incorporation in digital consumer contexts. It acknowledged that the sheer complexity of online terms, coupled with the quick and often casual nature of online gaming participation, may justify a re-examination of how and when contractual terms are deemed binding. The judgment suggested that legislative or judicial reform could better align contract doctrine with the realities of online consumer engagement, particularly in high-stakes environments like gambling.

Comment and Conclusion

The high court ruling in Durber v PPB marks a significant moment in the ongoing evolution of judicial attitudes toward contractual terms in consumer contracts. BFinding in favour of Durber, the court acknowledged the limitations of heavy reliance on buried or insufficiently signposted terms, especially in fast-paced, digital environments like online betting.

Contrasting Durber and Parker, the cases potentially allude to a softening in the traditional approach to the incorporation of contractual terms. The shift could reflect a growing sensitivity to the realities of digital consumer behaviour, where users often interact with platforms quickly and without detailed consideration.

Ultimately, these decisions reflect a nuanced judicial effort to balance operator obligations and consumer fairness. While businesses are still entitled to rely on well-drafted terms, the courts seem more willing to intervene where those terms fail to meet the standards of transparency and fairness expected in consumer contracts. The message is clear: enforceable terms must not only exist – they must also be meaningfully and reasonably incorporated.