Corrine Peal Durber v PPB Entertainment Limited

In an online gambling contract, the game rules may make the result displayed on screen contractually determinative. Where those rules conflict with standard terms stating that an unseen random-number-generator result or server record is definitive, a contractual priority clause may give precedence to the game rules.

A clause allowing the operator to avoid liability for broadly defined system or communications errors does not necessarily cover direct human programming errors. Terms which reverse a consumer’s reasonable expectation that the screen result is reliable, allocate all risks of the operator’s errors to the consumer, or make undisclosed server records conclusive may be unusual and onerous. Without adequate notice they are not incorporated. If incorporated, such terms may be unfair and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The claimant played an online jackpot game operated by the defendant. The game rules stated that the player should spin a jackpot wheel to determine which jackpot tier would be won. The claimant’s screen showed the Monster Jackpot of £1,097,132.71, but the defendant paid only the Daily Jackpot of £20,265.14.

The discrepancy resulted from a human software-mapping error. The defendant relied on standard terms providing that random-number-generator software determined all outcomes, that server records were definitive in case of discrepancy, and that the defendant was not liable for systems or communications errors.

The claimant applied to strike out the defence or obtain summary judgment. The central issues were construction, contractual priority, incorporation, and fairness under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

1. Summary judgment. The claimant’s application succeeded. The court had sufficient evidence and submissions to determine the construction issues summarily.
2. Construction of the Rules. The words stating that jackpot symbols must appear on the reels and that the player should spin the jackpot wheel to determine the jackpot tier created a WYSIWYG scheme. The screen display determined the result under the Rules.
3. Priority. Clause B1, which made the random-number-generator outcome and server records decisive, was inconsistent with the Rules. Under the Part B preamble, the Rules prevailed over Part B Conditions to the extent of inconsistency. The claimant therefore won the Monster Jackpot.
4. Clause B2. The phrase systems or communications errors could potentially include some errors caused by human programming. However, read with other terms which separately referred to human errors, B2 was construed against the defendant and did not cover the direct human mapping error in this case. It therefore did not entitle the defendant to avoid the play or exclude liability for the displayed win.
5. Incorporation. B1 and B2 were unusual and onerous. They displaced the consumer’s reasonable WYSIWYG expectation, made unseen server records conclusive, and allocated the risks of the operator’s errors to the consumer. They were buried in extensive and fragmented online terms, were not adequately signposted, and were not brought to the claimant’s attention. They were therefore not incorporated.
6. Fairness. Alternatively, if incorporated and applicable, B1 and B2 caused a significant imbalance contrary to good faith. They deprived the consumer of the ability to rely on the screen result and potentially excluded liability even for valid winnings and the defendant’s own negligence or recklessness. Each of the four sentences was unenforceable under section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
7. Summary judgment was entered for the claimant.