If there is anything that the regulated online gambling market in the UK prides itself on, the level of pedantry has gone into formulating its Gambling Act. In some areas, the Gambling Act is so detailed that it has allowed certain unpopular activities to avoid legal repercussions, as has been the case with the legal inability to define loot boxes in video games as gambling.

However, a recent High Court of Justice ruled against one of the industry’s most entrenched practices. A decision that could have disastrous financial implications for the sector should the case be seen to create a new legal precedent.

The Night That Changed Everything

In 2020, British punter Corinne Pearl Durber enjoyed a few spins on Red Tiger’s popular Wild Hatter video slot. A relaxing evening of gaming, was soon a reason for jubilation when a spin of the reels saw her land 3 jackpot symbols. This outcome would net her the incredible “Monster Jackpot” payout of £1.097 million.

However, every jackpot winner's nightmare was about to come true. Rather than having her account credited with over one million Pounds Sterling, she received a paltry £20,000. When she challenged the payout, the Paddy Power customer service team informed her that due to a “technical error” she would not receive the expected jackpot prize but would have to settle for the game’s lowest jackpot of £20,000.

With an additional £1.077 million on the line, Durber decided to gamble on the law, a risk that would prove to be well worth the reward.

 The Value of Words in the Rule of Law

Any gambler, whether playing online or at brick-and-mortar casinos, “knows” that if there is an error with the machine, the casino is only responsible for the result recorded on the gaming server.

However, Durber and her legal team argued that players and the payouts they receive should comply with how they are presented to the consumer, not on some obscure term hidden in the bowels of the casino website.

The argument, while surprisingly new, makes perfect sense. Players are told throughout how-to-play guides, casino SEO content, and even promotional materials that to know what they have won, they simply need to look at what is shown to them on the screen. 

As it turns out, the presiding judge, Sir Andrew George Ritchie, agreed with this simple yet effective “what you see if what you get” argument, ultimately ruling in Durbers' favour. The British High Court awarded the plaintiff a settlement of £1 million.

At the core of Judge Ritchie’s decision is his belief that customers must be treated in accordance with the casino's rules of engagement. 

 A Whole New World of Revisions

While this case took place in the United Kingdom, it’s only a matter of time before players elsewhere begin testing their luck against local Gambling Acts.

With the staggering financial implications of this ruling, casinos, sportsbooks, bingo rooms, and any gambling provider using RNG games will likely scramble to rewrite their promotions, game guides, and any content addressing payouts, random number generator results, and server-side errors.

The real question now is whether this decision will trigger further legal challenges in other jurisdictions or force operators to overhaul their terms, payouts, and player communications entirely. One thing is certain: the days of “what the server says goes” are coming to an end.