Table of Contents▼
Malfunction Voids All Pays: Can a Casino Take Back a Win?
"Malfunction Voids All Pays": Can a Casino Take Back Your Win?
"Malfunction voids all pays and plays" is a standard casino clause saying a software error cancels bets and winnings. In two UK High Court summary judgments – Green v Betfred (2021, about £1.72 million) and Durber v PPB Entertainment (2025, about £1.1 million) – the clauses relied on did not stop the players winning, because the terms were not clear enough or not properly brought to their attention.
Two caveats before anything else. We write plain-English explainers, not legal advice – for a large sum, speak to a solicitor. And both cases are English court decisions on specific terms; they do not settle what happens under a Curaçao, Anjouan or Malta licence, or under terms written differently.
What "Malfunction Voids All Pays and Plays" Actually Says
The phrase rarely sits in one place. In the Betfred case the operator relied on three separate documents, and none of them was the page a player sees while playing:
- Terms and Conditions, clause 4.4 – no liability for "communications or system errors" in connection with settlement of accounts or other features of the software.
- End-User Licence Agreement, clause 5 – no liability for "payments made to you as a result of a defect or error in the software".
- The game rules – a note at the very end of a scroll-down document: "a malfunction voids all pays and plays".
In the Paddy Power case the operator relied on two clauses in Part B of its conditions. Clause B1 said that where the result on your screen and the server's records disagree, "our records shall be regarded as definitive". Clause B2 said that in the event of "systems or communications errors" the operator would not be liable and reserved the right to void all related bets.
Translated, every one of these clauses says the same thing: if something goes wrong in the software, the operator decides what really happened, and you get what the operator's records say. On paper, that looks airtight. In court, it was not.
Green v Betfred (2021): The £1.7 Million Blackjack Side Bet
What happened at Betfred
On 26 January 2018, just after midnight, Andrew Green began playing Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven Blackjack, a Playtech game hosted by Betfred. He played its side bet feature for about five and a half hours. When he stopped, the screen showed winnings of £1,722,500.24.
Betfred's staff congratulated him at first. Days later, the operator said the game provider had reported a glitch and refused to pay. According to the explanation Playtech gave Betfred, trophy cards in the side bet were not being reset after each hand, so totals kept accumulating. The game had gone live only the morning before he played it.
The case is Green v Petfre (Gibraltar) Ltd (t/a Betfred) [2021] EWHC 842 (QB), decided by Mrs Justice Foster on 7 April 2021.
Why the clauses failed
The judge granted Mr Green summary judgment – a win without a full trial – on several independent grounds:
- The words did not cover it. There was no definition of "malfunction". Its natural meaning, the judge said, is "something in the nature of a detectable breakdown or interruption in service" – not a hidden programming defect that nobody could see.
- The terms were not incorporated. The clauses were buried in long, closely typed or all-capitals documents, without adequate signposting, so they were never properly brought to Mr Green's attention.
- They were not transparent or fair. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the court found the clauses failed the transparency test. Describing the EULA wording about "payments made to you", the judge called it "conspicuously obscure" when the intended meaning was that the bet was void and nothing was ever owed.
Betfred also argued the contract was void for mistake. That failed too: the game worked, just less profitably for the operator than it expected.
In Green, the court did not say a casino can never void a glitched win. It said these particular words did not cover a hidden defect, were not drawn to the player's attention, and were not transparent enough to rely on.
Durber v Paddy Power (2025): The £1.1 Million Jackpot
What happened at Paddy Power
On 18 October 2020, Corrine Durber played Wild Hatter on Paddy Power's site. The jackpot wheel on her screen stopped on the Monster Jackpot, shown as £1,097,132.71. Paddy Power paid her £20,265.14 – the Daily Jackpot – saying the server's random number generator had actually picked the smaller prize.
The cause, according to the judgment, was a human mapping error by the game's supplier on 1 September 2020 that swapped the Daily and Monster Jackpot displays. It affected 14 plays over 48 days before anyone noticed.
The case is Durber v PPB Entertainment Ltd [2025] EWHC 498 (KB), decided by Mr Justice Ritchie on 5 March 2025.
The ruling
Again, summary judgment for the player. The key findings:
- The game rules won. The game's own rules said spinning the wheel on screen decided the prize, and the conditions said the rules "shall prevail" over them in any inconsistency. The judge treated what you see as what you get.
- Clause B2 did not reach it. "Systems or communications errors" did not cover a human error in programming the display.
- The clauses were not incorporated. They were unusual and onerous and not adequately brought to her attention.
- Even if incorporated, they were unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
- On onerousness, the judge wrote: "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."
The judgment itself mentions no appeal. When we searched the National Archives case-law service on 9 October 2026, we found no Court of Appeal judgment in the case.
What the Judgments Do Not Decide
Here's the part most summaries skip. Both cases are summary judgments on specific wording, specific presentation and specific facts. Neither one holds that every malfunction clause fails.
Mrs Justice Foster said so directly in Green. She made no finding that a properly drafted and signposted clause could never exclude liability for events like these, even in online gambling. A clause that defines "malfunction" clearly, covers hidden defects and human error expressly, and is flagged prominently is a different argument. Newer drafting already looks different. In October 2026 we read the general terms of a UK-licensed operator (32Red, version 2.3, last updated 28 September 2026) that define a "Malfunction" to include errors that "may or may not be apparent" and that only "come to light" when results are analysed retrospectively. The same document flags those rights in an "Important Information" summary at the top. Whether that wording survives a challenge is untested – but it is written to answer exactly what the courts found missing.
Two more limits:
- Obvious errors are different. Both cases involved results that looked entirely normal to the player. A display showing an impossible payout, or a bet accepted at an obviously wrong price, raises a different question that neither case decided.
- Regulator guidance points the same way, but it is guidance. The UK Gambling Commission tells licensees not to use "may" or "reserve the right" terms over customers' funds, and its 2022 update reminded ADR providers they must consider whether a contract term is fair. That helps an argument. It does not decide one.
One more boundary worth drawing. A casino voiding winnings because you broke a bonus rule is not a malfunction case at all – a void for breaking bonus terms is a separate question, with its own clauses and its own regulator guidance.
Outside the UK: Curaçao, Anjouan and Malta
Short answer: the English cases do not bind other regulators or courts, and we have not researched the position under each licence in depth. Treat everything in this section as orientation, not a verdict.
What we can say from the terms themselves is that offshore drafting is usually broad. Jackpotter, licensed in Anjouan, says in its terms (section 15.3) that if you are incorrectly awarded winnings as a result of "any human error or any bug, defect or error in the software", it will not be liable to pay them and you agree to refund them. 7Bit, licensed by the Tobique Gaming Commission, says mistaken credits "remain the Casino's property" and become a debt if withdrawn. Mr Green, under a Malta licence, says erroneous payments caused by supplier technical errors "shall be paid back" and may be retaken without your prior consent.
Your route under those licences is the operator's complaint procedure, then whatever ADR or regulator complaint channel the licence provides – and some regulators do not take individual disputes at all. If your casino holds an Anjouan licence, read what an Anjouan licence does not give you before you count on a regulator stepping in.
If a Casino Reverses a Win: What to Do
Most withheld payouts have nothing to do with glitches – start with the general triage for a withheld payout to rule out verification or wagering first. If the casino has told you a malfunction or error is the reason, work through these steps.
Freeze the evidence
Do it before you contact support, and before you play another round.
- Round or bet ID for the winning round, and the game name and provider
- Timestamp of the round, with your time zone
- Screenshots or screen recording of the result screen and the pay display
- Balance and transaction history export showing the credit and any reversal
- A dated copy of the terms, the game rules and any licence agreement as they stand today
Both court cases turned on what the screen showed and what the documents said. Those are the two things you need to preserve.
Ask for the reason and the clause in writing
Email support and ask three questions: which specific term the casino relies on, who identified the error and how, and what the server records show for your round. Keep the reply. A vague "technical issue" answer is worth pushing on, because the cases above were won on vagueness.
Ask whether the error affected other players' rounds and over what period. In Durber, the error affected 14 plays over 48 days – a detail that showed a supplier failure rather than anything the player did.
Escalate in order
File a formal complaint through the operator's own procedure and keep the reference. If that fails, go to the ADR body named in the terms or the regulator's complaint route – our guide to which ADR body will hear a glitch dispute covers each licence. For a five- or six-figure sum, get a solicitor involved early – both cases above were decided on detailed contract arguments.
If the money was credited to you in error
Now the mirror case, and the one we cannot answer for you. In March 2026, William Hill asked customers to return funds credited to their accounts by a malfunction in its Jackpot Drop game, according to a CDC Gaming brief dated 22 March 2026; accounts were reportedly locked or balances manually adjusted.
Every set of terms we read in October 2026 says you must report and repay mistaken credits. Whether those terms are enforceable in your case, and what the general law says about money paid by mistake, is a separate legal question. We have not researched it and do not give a verdict on it. If the amount matters to you, speak to a solicitor before you spend or withdraw it – and do not keep playing with a balance you suspect is wrong.
What a Chargeback Can and Cannot Do Here
Not much. A card chargeback disputes a payment you made – your deposit. A reversed win is money the casino says it never owed you, so there is no card transaction to dispute for it. Filing a chargeback on your deposits in protest usually ends the account. Chargebacks are built for deposits, not winnings, and they belong at the very end of the road, after the complaint and ADR routes are exhausted.
FAQ
What does "malfunction voids all pays and plays" mean?
It means that if the casino's software malfunctions, bets and winnings on the affected rounds are cancelled. In Green v Betfred, the High Court read "malfunction" in its natural sense as a detectable breakdown or interruption in service, not a hidden programming defect, because the term was undefined.
Can an online casino take back winnings paid in error?
There is no blanket answer. In the UK, it depends on what the terms say, whether they were properly brought to your attention, and whether they are fair and transparent. In Green (2021) and Durber (2025), the clauses relied on failed those tests and the players won.
Can a casino void a jackpot because of a software glitch?
It can try, and its terms will usually say it can. In Durber v PPB Entertainment, the High Court held that Paddy Power had to pay the £1,097,132.71 Monster Jackpot shown on screen, because the game rules prevailed and the error clauses did not apply.
Do I have to pay back money a casino credited by mistake?
Casino terms almost always say you must report and repay mistaken credits. Whether that is enforceable in your situation is a separate legal question we do not give a verdict on. For a significant amount, take advice from a solicitor before spending or withdrawing the money.
What should I do if my balance changes after a glitch?
Stop playing, then save the round ID, timestamp, screenshots, transaction history and a dated copy of the terms and game rules. Ask the casino in writing which term it relies on and how it identified the error, then file a formal complaint before escalating to ADR.
Do these court cases apply outside the UK?
Not directly. They are English High Court decisions applying UK consumer law, so they do not bind regulators or courts in Curaçao, Anjouan or Malta. Their reasoning about undefined terms and hidden clauses can still support a complaint elsewhere.