3 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoThat 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.