Paddy Power’s £1m Blunder: A Jackpot ‘Error’ They Could Afford, But Didn’t Want to Pay

As Flutter Rakes in Billions, One Gardener Had to Fight for What She Was Owed

Bookmakers love to sell you a dream. The thrill of the bet, the endless possibilities, the idea that, just maybe, this could be your lucky day. But as one Gloucestershire gardener recently discovered, when the dream actually comes true, the house will do everything in its power to turn it into a computer error.

Enter Corrine Durber, who thought she’d hit the jackpot—literally—on Paddy Power’s Wild Hatter game, only to be told that, no, the £1,097,132.71 flashing on her screen was not real. It was, apparently, a display glitch, and she’d actually won just £20,265. Convenient, that.

For Paddy Power, this was no mere clerical error; it was a test case in corporate reluctance, where the default setting is “stall, deny, litigate.” So instead of paying out what their own game had declared a win, they forced Mrs Durber into a gruelling High Court battle, only to be told—unsurprisingly—that if your game says someone has won a million quid, you’d better pay them a million quid.

Justice Prevails—But Where’s the Regulator?

In his ruling, Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed Paddy Power’s excuses with all the patience of a parent listening to a child insist they definitely didn’t eat the last biscuit. "When a trader puts all the risk on a consumer for its own recklessness, negligence, errors, inadequate digital services and inadequate testing, that appears onerous to me,” he said.

Or, put more bluntly: if your system is broken, that’s your problem, not the customer’s.

And yet, while the High Court stepped in, the UK’s Gambling Commission was nowhere to be seen. The regulator, which exists precisely to ensure fairness in the industry, has been conspicuously silent. No investigation, no inquiry, not even a sternly worded press release. One might almost think they were too busy crafting new slogans about responsible gambling to notice one of the country’s biggest bookmakers attempting to rewrite the rules after taking someone’s money.

The Racing Post, meanwhile, also appears to have turned a blind eye, despite this being one of the most significant gambling rulings in recent history. Perhaps it was buried somewhere between the tips for Lingfield and the latest breathless update on the bloodstock market.

Meanwhile, Paddy Power’s Parent Company Is Swimming in Cash

What makes all of this even more remarkable is that Paddy Power’s parent company, Flutter, is hardly short of a few quid.

Flutter, which also owns Sky Bet and Betfair, recently moved its base to New York—a subtle way of saying, we’d rather be taxed over there, thanks. And according to its latest financial results, it’s doing quite well in its new home.

In the last quarter of 2024 alone, Flutter raked in a staggering $14.05 billion (£11bn) in revenue, with US profits soaring thanks to its FanDuel brand, which now holds a 43% share of the US sports betting market. Meanwhile, the UK and Ireland division continued to thrive, with “sustained sportsbook and iGaming product innovation”—a phrase which, one assumes, means inventing ever more enticing ways for punters to part with their cash.

The company is so successful that its adjusted core earnings rose by 26% to $3.26bn last year, while monthly active players hit 13.9 million.

So let’s just take a moment to appreciate the sheer absurdity of it all:

A multibillion-dollar betting empire, which dominates the gambling markets on both sides of the Atlantic, which boasts of innovation and fairness, decided that one gardener’s rightful £1m win was simply too much to stomach.

They fought her. They dragged her through court. And then they lost—because, in the end, a win is a win, no matter how inconvenient it might be for the bookie.

The Real Lesson Here? The House Plays By Its Own Rules

This case is not just about one woman’s win; it’s about how the industry behaves when customers actually beat it. Paddy Power were more than happy to take Mrs Durber’s bets, more than happy to let her believe she was playing in good faith. But the moment she won too much, suddenly, the system wasn’t so reliable.

Had she lost, of course, there would have been no “computer error.” No recalibration of the numbers. No High Court battle. Just the same old industry rhetoric about how gambling is a fair, transparent game of chance.

And yet, while Mrs Durber did eventually get her money, the real question is: how many other cases like this have gone unchallenged? How many other customers have been fobbed off with excuses about software glitches, quietly refunded a fraction of their winnings, and lacked the time, resources, or sheer determination to take on a global gambling behemoth in court?

Because for every Corrine Durber who wins a legal battle, there are likely dozens—if not hundreds—who simply accept the bookie’s word and walk away.

And that’s why the silence from the Gambling Commission is deafening. Because if they don’t step in now, they’re effectively saying that bookmakers can rewrite the rules whenever it suits them.

So well done, Paddy Power. You saved yourself a million pounds for a few years. But in doing so, you’ve exposed what punters have long suspected: when it comes to gambling, the house always wins—until a High Court judge tells them they can’t.