iGaming Daily

Joe Streeter (00:01.762)
Good morning and welcome to the iGaming Daily sponsored by Optimove, the number one CRM marketing solution for the iGaming market. And today we have a special episode reflecting on a legal battle in which Paddy Power were defeated by a disgruntled punter in the high court last week. The case was around a payout on the world hatter slot and discrepancies between what the players screen said they had won and what Paddy Power's system said the player had won. Ted Menmuir from SBC and I are joined to discuss the case.

by Ann Soilleux-Mills and I will allow her to introduce herself because she can certainly do that better than me. So Anna, thanks ever so much for your time today. And yeah, if you could just tell our audience where you're from and yeah, what you do.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (00:45.303)
Thanks, Joe. Thanks, Ted. Well, thanks very much for inviting me to join you today. I'm Ann Soilleux-Mills. I'm a partner at the law firm CMS in London. My area of expertise is gambling regulation and consumer law. So this case is particularly interesting for me.

Joe Streeter (01:03.662)
Brilliant, really the perfect guest for this show. So really excited to get your insight on what happened last week or what happened over, I guess it was like a five year period really, quite a long time. Anna, but just to kick us off, if you could, just from your perspective, just provide us a little bit more context about the case. And also, were you surprised by last week's outcome or did you expect that?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (01:06.787)
You

Ted M (01:14.064)
Mm-hmm.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (01:29.187)
I would say I wasn't surprised. We've had a few of these like big cases in recent years where somewhere the gambling operator was successful and somewhere where the player was ultimately responsible. On these particular facts, the outcome wasn't particularly surprising and the case is really just a good reminder of the rules that

operators need to bear in mind when trying to rely on these kind of so-called errors terms in their terms and conditions. But what it really took, what the kind of crux of it was is Mrs. Durber saw on her screen that she had won. There was no ambiguity in that. But the paddy power terms and conditions, main terms and conditions said,

that the RNG result was determinative in the event of an error. And what had happened in this wild Hatter game, which is a Red Tiger game, is that there was a software mapping issue in the background and the animations that the player was seeing on screen weren't linked up properly to the result in the back end and what the RNG, the random number generator was determining. What was more

Ted M (02:26.8)
Mm.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (02:48.547)
tricky for Paddy Power is that their game rules, so they had multiple sets of terms and conditions, their games rules were worded to the effect that also seemed to suggest that what the player would see on screen would take precedence. The games rules said spin the wheels to determine what jackpot you win. And then in another set of terms and conditions, it said if there's a conflict between what you see on screen and the RNG results,

the RNG or the game server result would take precedence. And that was the crux of this case.

Ted M (03:23.929)
Hi Anna, as a legal expert and within your remit of gamming regulation and consumer rights, where do you see this lawsuit falling? Is it more towards the technicalities of regulation or actually towards consumer rights?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (03:41.075)
It's very much about consumer rights. This is great illustration of all the different rules, all the different consumer protection rules that you need to bear in mind when operators are drafting these standard terms and conditions.

Joe Streeter (03:57.486)
And Anna, you mentioned it was a software mapping error, right? That really led to this incident. That is a, correct me if I'm wrong, that is a human error rather than a technical error.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (04:10.493)
Yes, that's right. that was another one of the issues. So it was found to be a human error in the kind of the software mapping in the back end. And another one of the issues that the judge found is that Paddy Power's terms and conditions weren't clear enough when they talked about systems and communication errors, that that should be wide enough to also capture human errors.

Joe Streeter (04:36.366)
Okay, how significant that was. So that was significant, right? The fact that it wasn't a technical glitch, but instead was a human error. That was potentially big in the outcome of the case.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (04:44.235)
Yes, yeah, it very much turned on the facts this case, but yes, that was was another one of the issues that went against Paddy Power.

Ted M (04:53.893)
So, I mean, taking it back to two operators, I mean, how binding are terms and conditions especially applied to the mechanics of the slot and the prizes it rewards?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (05:06.345)
Yeah, well, so again, this case is, you know, it doesn't really set any new precedent, but it's a really good illustration of why all these things are very important. So the first thing, the first issue to look at when looking at your terms and conditions is, are your terms consistent? Are they saying or are they potentially saying different things in different places? And that was one of the issues with with Paddy Power. They were suggesting one thing in their games rules and saying something else.

in another set of terms and conditions and the games rules took precedence. Then how binding are your terms and conditions? Well, generally the courts accept that click wrap terms, you you click to accept is absolutely fine to create a legally binding contract. However, if there are any terms in your terms and conditions which are deemed to be onerous or unexpected for a consumer, you need to do more.

Ted M (05:49.339)
Mm-hmm.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (06:04.663)
to bring them to a consumer's attention in order for them to be binding. So you may have individual terms and conditions which aren't legally enforceable against a consumer if they're unexpected or onerous. And again, that was a problem in this case. And then finally, you can also have terms which aren't fair because the way that they're drafted is unfair on the consumer. there's a kind of how are the...

Ted M (06:28.197)
Yeah.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (06:32.641)
your terms and conditions presented and how are they drafted and you need to get all of that right in order for them to be enforceable.

Ted M (06:34.789)
Mm-hmm.

Ted M (06:41.297)
So the judge in this court case thought that the terms that Pani Pah had drafted just gave them absolute right to the operator. And that was deemed as an issue, wasn't it?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (06:52.885)
Yes, it was the unfairness. the term, one of the terms that Paddy Power sought to rely on said, you know, if there's a discrepancy between what you see on screen and the results on the Paddy Power server, the Paddy Power server takes precedence. And then there was an exclusion of liability where they said they didn't have to pay out in the event of the error. And the judge took issue with the drafting of both of those clauses and said that they were effectively too broadly drafted.

Ted M (06:54.757)
Yeah.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (07:22.377)
in Paddy Powers' favour to be enforceable against a consumer.

Joe Streeter (07:27.416)
Wow, that's really interesting. And obviously a big case, do you think it could indicate that online gambling companies will kind of move forward to make terms and conditions more accessible and transparent? Or could we, yeah.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (07:44.035)
Yeah, I mean, absolutely. mean, you know, operators are going to be looking once again at their terms and conditions after this case and thinking, you know, what do we need, what changes do we need to make to ensure that we don't find ourselves in the position that Paddy Power did? Like I said, there's been a few cases in recent years, there was, know, Green and Betfred were sort of similar issues and

At that time, all of our gambling operator clients were on the phone saying, can you check our terms and conditions? We don't want to be in this case. yes, it will be, as I said, it will be a case of the way that terms are presented, how are you highlighting those really important clauses that you want to rely on, like error clauses? Are you just burying, I think at one point in the judgment, the judge said that the clauses that Paddy Power sought to rely on were buried in

Ted M (08:08.497)
Mm-hmm.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (08:36.989)
middle of 45 pages of small print, that's not enough. Are you providing a key term summary? You might even go as far as to flag these terms as disclaimers in the user journey. You've got to balance the user experience with wanting to be able to enforce these clauses, of course. But yeah, the operator is going to be looking pretty closely at the terms and conditions again, I think, after this case.

Ted M (08:37.681)
Yeah.

Ted M (09:03.089)
But looking back at what was contested and how Paddy Power responded. Now, one of the things that they explained was the random number generator, its server and the feedback, which did tell the customer that an error had happened and that she got given that the wrong payout was displayed to her. Why couldn't that be applied to this case?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (09:25.257)
in which one sorry.

Ted M (09:26.019)
In defense of Patty Power, that the display had shown the wrong number and that Patty Power's customer service support had actually shown a proof that there was an error.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (09:38.627)
So what the, I think when she was playing the game, was no ambiguity. She was shown, it was a Wheel of Fortune game and she spun the wheel and it landed on Monster Jackpot and the Monster Jackpot was what was gonna entitle her to one million pounds. There was no ambiguity in that. And so the judge kept on coming back to this concept of.

Ted M (09:42.161)
Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Ted M (09:49.583)
Mm-hmm.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (10:03.939)
what you see is what you get. If she was playing in a live casino and she saw a roulette wheel land on 27, she would expect that 27 was the answer. You wouldn't expect a croupier to say, actually, the house has decided that was really 13. And so what the judge was saying there is a consumer's expectation is what they see is what you get.

Ted M (10:17.059)
Okay, but okay.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (10:27.275)
If you want to override that and you actually want something that they can't see or have access to to take precedence over what they see, then you're going to have to go so much further than just burying a clause somewhere in a set of terms and conditions.

Ted M (10:38.565)
Right.

If I could give you an example of say I logged into my bank account and saw that it had 10 million pounds in there and then when I went to the ATM they actually told me now I'm an overdraft. Couldn't I not claim that it was a technical error? how, I guess I'm trying to point out, how should this, is there any way that Patti Bound could have managed this differently?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (11:05.443)
Yes, there's a few things they could have done. First of all, their games rules, which were separate to their terms and conditions where the error clauses are, should have been clearer that the RNG result takes precedence over the visual. And so they had one set of terms and conditions which said, or suggested that what the customer would see is what they win. And then separately had another

but said, no, our RNG result and our server result takes precedence. So making sure they were consistent in that message would have helped them. And further than that, the clause that said that the RNG result kind of takes precedence should have been better flagged or signposted to the consumer. And that probably would have got them there and the outcome would have been different if they'd done those things.

Ted M (11:50.63)
Mm.

Joe Streeter (11:59.903)
All

Joe Streeter (12:03.656)
Okay, I think me and Ted were kind of both after the same point. Is there a there is a world where the RNG could rule over the what is seen on the screen with the right signposting?

Ted M (12:06.449)
You

Anna Soilleux-Mills (12:15.499)
Yeah, absolutely. And the judge even goes as far as to say this. This case doesn't mean that operators are always going to have to pay out in the event of an error or that their RNG result can never take precedence. Because let's be honest, there's lots of good reasons why an RNG result should take precedence. It means that games are paying out in accordance with their published RTP. RNGs have to be tested.

to ensure their fairness. So there's lots of good reasons why the RNG results should take precedence. But it just needs to be clear to a consumer because their initial expectation is going to be that what they see on screen is the right answer. But not only is it about making sure those terms are clearly flagged, but it's also about the drafting of the clause. So in this case, the

the judge took issue with the breadth of the errors clause that Paddy Plower was seeking to rely on. So those clauses need to be extremely carefully drafted to make sure that they then don't become an unfair term, which even if they were very, very prominently presented to the consumer, you still couldn't then rely on. there's a bit of legal wizardry involved in getting that right.

Joe Streeter (13:36.994)
Yeah, it's a real fine line, isn't it? It's a real fine line. And also, I guess if Ted does find a million pounds in his bank tomorrow morning, he should still come to work on Monday. Anna, I wanted to ask you about the role of Red Tiger as well, obviously the supplier in this. Yeah, where do they stand? This is an interesting predicament for them, right?

Ted M (13:45.888)
I'll give it out of the cold

Anna Soilleux-Mills (13:57.939)
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I would love to be party to the conversations that are going on between Paddy Power and Red Tiger. So the case was brought against Paddy Power because, you know, Mrs. Durber had a contractual relationship with Paddy Power. She didn't have a contractual relationship. It's unlikely she had a

direct contractual relationship with Red Tiger. So she's brought her claim against Paddy Power because a contract-based claim is the most straightforward. However, behind the scenes, there's obviously a contract in place between Paddy Power and Red Tiger under the game supply agreement. And we negotiate lots of these agreements all the time. And a payout errors clause is probably one of the most hotly

know, negotiated clauses in one of those agreements. So although Paddy Power has had to pay out over a million pounds to Mrs. Durbar, depending on what the agreement says between Paddy Power and Red Tiger, they might be able to recover some or ideally all of that from Red Tiger.

Ted M (15:08.771)
Interesting. I'd like to kind of take you back on the consumer rights. Now, know, consumer rights happen in, disputes happen in every industry, but had Paddy Power taken a different approach of a customer has disputed the jackpot and offered us something different or a different type of reward above the daily jackpot? A, could they do that? And B, would it change the situation of the lawsuit?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (15:36.739)
I mean, certainly they could have sought to settle before things go to court. mean, it's quite rare that consumer law matters end up in court. They are often settled before getting to court. So yes, it's possible that they could have reached a settlement with Mrs. Durber and her lawyers before it got to that stage.

you know.

Ted M (16:07.409)
But even if they offered that as, know, so they offered her a hundred thousand pounds, goodwill, and one of the things that the judge highlighted is that she played in good faith. And what can Patti Power do the same and said, look, this is a mistake, but we will give you 50,000 or a hundred thousand pounds. Does that serve any purpose or?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (16:26.595)
No, no, not really, because, you know, under what was found is under the contract that existed between Paddy Power and Mrs. Durber, she was entitled to what she was promised. And so Paddy Power were found to be in breach of contract by not not paying out. So they may have offered to settle, but Mrs. Durber would not have been, you know, obliged to accept any such settlement. She obviously felt that she had a strong case, which she did.

and so she was entitled to the full million.

Joe Streeter (17:01.518)
Interesting and Anna obviously mentioned this isn't the first type of case like this isn't the first of its kind type of first of its kind type of case. It made national headlines last week obviously went everywhere. There were all the shots outside the courtroom and stuff. Do you think this will lead to the UK GC maybe taking any action kind of changing their approach to enforcing?

more transparency when it comes to terms and conditions or

Anna Soilleux-Mills (17:31.875)
mean, the gambling commission have been relatively focused on consumer law issues and fairness of operators practices. For some time now, there was a competition and markets authority investigation kind of triggered by the gambling commission back in 2019. And the gambling commission have said that terms and conditions and fairness of terms and conditions will be and continue to be a focus for them this year.

Yes, I think it is likely that the operators will see more scrutiny on terms and conditions from the gambling commission, not necessarily just triggered by this case, but just is just generally an area of focus for the gambling commission.

Ted M (18:19.205)
As a legal expert, how do you find fair for what is essentially a high risk sector where people gamble and either win or lose money? And how do you consult clients on that, apply a layer of fairness to their games, to their marketing?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (18:41.771)
Yeah, mean, it's an interesting question. mean, you know, the fair has a definition in law and it applies, you know, to any business. Trying to apply that in a gambling context can be tricky, but there's quite a lot of precedent and learnings that we've taken from previous cases and the CMA investigation from a few years ago.

So I think the industry is definitely better than it was, but these kind of errors issues will continue to be a problem. It's just the nature of the technology. But I think consumers are also learning more about how these things work. And so there's a kind of an expectation. yeah, it's interesting.

cases and interesting times to be a consumer lawyer in this space.

Ted M (19:38.959)
No, indeed, indeed, yeah, yeah.

Joe Streeter (19:43.2)
It really is. And last night, last week showed that it really highlighted it with this case. I guess to close us out and Ted and I could pick your brains all day on this subject. So interesting. But just to close us off, what would you be the key lessons from this case that you would identify as we kind of move forward and look to keep progressing moving on?

Anna Soilleux-Mills (20:05.251)
I mean, I think the key things is that operators need to have their terms and conditions reviewed and have them reviewed regularly, probably like an annual cycle of reviews. And it's, as I said, it's identifying those kind of clauses that might be onerous or unexpected to consumers and working out a way of better signposting and flagging those to consumers. So that's one thing.

how are they actually presented and brought to the attention of players? And the other thing is very, very careful and precise drafting of those terms and conditions. And the other things that the judge took issue with is having lots of different sets of terms and conditions and inconsistent terms and conditions. So it's sort of taking a holistic look at those terms and conditions and

and reviewing them regularly because it is possible to get it right. It's just quite difficult to get it right.

Joe Streeter (21:04.814)
They really have to align with everything, right? Even like game marketing and everything like that. If there's any contradictions, you're kind of liable. That's really interesting. Ted, did you have a final question before we close off? yeah, sorry. Yeah, it's really interesting how they have to align with kind of every element of the game, even the game marketing. And I know that's a really strong way to close us off and a really interesting episode. So thank you ever so much for your time. yeah, it would be great to have you back on as well to talk more consumer rights.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (21:08.675)
Absolutely, yeah. Yeah.

Ted M (21:14.865)
No, no, no, I've got to take a seat now.

Joe Streeter (21:34.723)
this situation continues to unfold and I'm sure comes up again soon. But yeah, thank you ever so much for your time and thank you Ted and thank you to everyone for listening as well.

Anna Soilleux-Mills (21:43.715)
Bye.