5 ms·

Gambler wins £1M payout from online game vendor in High Court case

eterm 2y ago
Interesting note: > which had affected 14 plays over 48 days. That rather implies the so-called "daily jackpot" isn't even won every day.
- notwhereyouare 2y ago
  i took that as more that the daily jackpot is won daily, but this bug saying they won the mega jackpot happened 14 times in 48 days
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    So maybe there are 13 other people in the same situation, except that they accepted the consolation prize? This may not be over... (and I would guess the decision here may well be appealed, anyway.)
  - eterm 2y ago
    It's possible, I suppose if there's a different mapping each day of the week then that would line up with 14 occurrences over 49 days if it only happened on weekends for example. But my original interpretation is the cynical one.
jmclnx 2y ago
As it should be, otherwise these on-line gambling sites will be able to game the system at anytime.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
Huh. What's the source of truth here? How do we know what anybody has won or not won? Can I create an iPad screenshot of myself winning a Monster Jackpot, and then be awarded a Monster Jackpot?
- Arnavion 2y ago
  They acknowledged the bug themselves, so they're not disputing that she saw the 1M prize animation. >PPB had 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. >The judge found that the result from the random number generator was different from the result on screen due to human error in mapping the software, which had affected 14 plays over 48 days.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    That didn't answer any of my questions. Suppose I wanted to be the 15th of those 14 people. I have identical claims, except that mine, unlike theirs, are fraudulent. How will this be determined?
    - shakna 2y ago
      > Mr Padgett admitted that 13 other consumers had been affected by the same mislabelling between the 1st of September and the 18th of October 2020 and he listed the dates upon which those events occurred. Discovery. The company had the logs to prove where and when the bug occured. This is why they're legally required to keep such logs.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- alibarber 2y ago
  I think that the actual bug was indeed found and proven, most likely by the company themselves or an auditor (or perhaps even from their supplier). The article states that this happened 14 times over a period of 48 days so there must be some sort of record that was found. Of course, a less scrupulous casino regulated by some more ‘business friendly’ government might tell you to go pound sand and not admit anything, so actually getting anything relies mainly on the legal system.
- marcinzm 2y ago
gnabgib 2y ago
This is nowhere near the title Gardener wins case against Paddy Power over £1m prize, nor is it a fair summary of the case. "Gardener wins what online game told her she won" "Gambling app fails to prove software bug obviates their obligation to pay"
- an_ko 2y ago
  Would you feel similarly if you went to a casino and won at roulette, only for the casino to claim that there was sand in the bearings or something and refuse to pay out your winnings?
- dang 2y ago
  Ok, I've made the gardener a gambler and put online gaming into the title above.
deskr 2y ago
Is the court ruling available to see? I feel like there are details missing. What happened to those who "really" won the jackpot according to the random number generator? What did the UI show then? Did everyone who won the smaller jackpot actually win the big jackpot? What are the technical details of the glitch? Based on this incomplete information I'd say a total audit of the system should be carried out.
- speerer 2y ago
  It's here. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/498 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/498 "The Defendant went on to plead that the game was subject to a mapping error affecting the animations so the images which the Claimant saw when playing the game were in error, but asserted that the error did not affect the RNGS outcome. The Defendant accepted that during her play the Claimant’s screen showed that she had won a Jackpot because three Jackpot symbols appeared on the slot reels. An animation was then presented to the Claimant with the Jackpot wheel. The Defendant asserted that, as a result of the mapping error, when the wheel spun the pointer came to rest on the Monster Jackpot segment but should instead have pointed to a Daily Jackpot segment. "
  - deskr 2y ago
    Wow, thanks! I'm only partially in but I do recommend reading it. It's quite readable. >Mr Padgett then made the remarkable assertions that this was a “fairly minor display issue” and that the Claimant “had not been negatively impacted and was in fact paid out the correct amount as determined by the RNG and in line with Paddy Power’s terms and conditions.” >Stopping here, despite the absence of a witness statement from the Claimant, I do not accept those assertions by Mr Padgett. £1 million is a life changing sum for the vast majority of people in England and Wales. It could abolish debts, feed families, buy houses, pay for private medical care and many other vital matters in life. I infer that, like the majority of the population, the Claimant hoped and maybe dreamed of winning over £1 million. So, when she did so, on 18.10.2020, and when that sum was then taken away from her, that cannot properly or fairly be characterised as a “fairly minor display issue” and it is wrong to assert that the Claimant has “not been negatively impacted”. Also: >Mr Padgett admitted that 13 other consumers had been affected by the same mislabelling between the 1st of September and the 18th of October 2020 and he listed the dates upon which those events occurred. What he did not do was list the vice versa errors, namely where consumers were shown they had won the Daily Jackpot but in had in fact won the Monster Jackpot according to the RNGS and no evidence was provided at all about the vice versa errors, if any. Nor did he inform the Court about what the Defendant had done in relation to each of those consumers’ wins.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Interesting note: > which had affected 14 plays over 48 days. That rather implies the so-called "daily jackpot" isn't even won every day.

notwhereyouare 2y ago
i took that as more that the daily jackpot is won daily, but this bug saying they won the mega jackpot happened 14 times in 48 days
- mannykannot 2y ago
  So maybe there are 13 other people in the same situation, except that they accepted the consolation prize? This may not be over... (and I would guess the decision here may well be appealed, anyway.)
- eterm 2y ago
  It's possible, I suppose if there's a different mapping each day of the week then that would line up with 14 occurrences over 49 days if it only happened on weekends for example. But my original interpretation is the cynical one.

jmclnx 2y ago

As it should be, otherwise these on-line gambling sites will be able to game the system at anytime.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

Huh. What's the source of truth here? How do we know what anybody has won or not won? Can I create an iPad screenshot of myself winning a Monster Jackpot, and then be awarded a Monster Jackpot?

Arnavion 2y ago
They acknowledged the bug themselves, so they're not disputing that she saw the 1M prize animation. >PPB had 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. >The judge found that the result from the random number generator was different from the result on screen due to human error in mapping the software, which had affected 14 plays over 48 days.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  That didn't answer any of my questions. Suppose I wanted to be the 15th of those 14 people. I have identical claims, except that mine, unlike theirs, are fraudulent. How will this be determined?
  - shakna 2y ago
    > Mr Padgett admitted that 13 other consumers had been affected by the same mislabelling between the 1st of September and the 18th of October 2020 and he listed the dates upon which those events occurred. Discovery. The company had the logs to prove where and when the bug occured. This is why they're legally required to keep such logs.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alibarber 2y ago
I think that the actual bug was indeed found and proven, most likely by the company themselves or an auditor (or perhaps even from their supplier). The article states that this happened 14 times over a period of 48 days so there must be some sort of record that was found. Of course, a less scrupulous casino regulated by some more ‘business friendly’ government might tell you to go pound sand and not admit anything, so actually getting anything relies mainly on the legal system.
marcinzm 2y ago

gnabgib 2y ago

This is nowhere near the title Gardener wins case against Paddy Power over £1m prize, nor is it a fair summary of the case. "Gardener wins what online game told her she won" "Gambling app fails to prove software bug obviates their obligation to pay"

an_ko 2y ago
Would you feel similarly if you went to a casino and won at roulette, only for the casino to claim that there was sand in the bearings or something and refuse to pay out your winnings?
dang 2y ago
Ok, I've made the gardener a gambler and put online gaming into the title above.

deskr 2y ago

Is the court ruling available to see? I feel like there are details missing. What happened to those who "really" won the jackpot according to the random number generator? What did the UI show then? Did everyone who won the smaller jackpot actually win the big jackpot? What are the technical details of the glitch? Based on this incomplete information I'd say a total audit of the system should be carried out.

speerer 2y ago
It's here. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/498 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/498 "The Defendant went on to plead that the game was subject to a mapping error affecting the animations so the images which the Claimant saw when playing the game were in error, but asserted that the error did not affect the RNGS outcome. The Defendant accepted that during her play the Claimant’s screen showed that she had won a Jackpot because three Jackpot symbols appeared on the slot reels. An animation was then presented to the Claimant with the Jackpot wheel. The Defendant asserted that, as a result of the mapping error, when the wheel spun the pointer came to rest on the Monster Jackpot segment but should instead have pointed to a Daily Jackpot segment. "
- deskr 2y ago
  Wow, thanks! I'm only partially in but I do recommend reading it. It's quite readable. >Mr Padgett then made the remarkable assertions that this was a “fairly minor display issue” and that the Claimant “had not been negatively impacted and was in fact paid out the correct amount as determined by the RNG and in line with Paddy Power’s terms and conditions.” >Stopping here, despite the absence of a witness statement from the Claimant, I do not accept those assertions by Mr Padgett. £1 million is a life changing sum for the vast majority of people in England and Wales. It could abolish debts, feed families, buy houses, pay for private medical care and many other vital matters in life. I infer that, like the majority of the population, the Claimant hoped and maybe dreamed of winning over £1 million. So, when she did so, on 18.10.2020, and when that sum was then taken away from her, that cannot properly or fairly be characterised as a “fairly minor display issue” and it is wrong to assert that the Claimant has “not been negatively impacted”. Also: >Mr Padgett admitted that 13 other consumers had been affected by the same mislabelling between the 1st of September and the 18th of October 2020 and he listed the dates upon which those events occurred. What he did not do was list the vice versa errors, namely where consumers were shown they had won the Daily Jackpot but in had in fact won the Monster Jackpot according to the RNGS and no evidence was provided at all about the vice versa errors, if any. Nor did he inform the Court about what the Defendant had done in relation to each of those consumers’ wins.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]