William Hill Jackpot Disputes and Unpaid Winnings
Recent reports concerning the William Hill jackpot glitch have raised significant concern among customers. A number of players have described situations in which substantial winnings were displayed during online play, only for those amounts to be withheld or reversed at a later stage.
Issues involving William Hill not paying winnings, or online casinos refusing to honour apparent results, are not new. However, the current situation has brought renewed attention to the legal position and the extent to which gambling operators can rely on “technical error” provisions.
Our Experience in This Area
Coyle White Devine Solicitors acted for the successful claimants in two of the leading High Court cases concerning disputes of this nature.
In Durber v Paddy Power (2025), we represented Corrine Durber, who was informed during gameplay that she had won a jackpot of approximately £1 million. The operator subsequently asserted that the outcome was the result of a software issue and sought to limit the payout. The High Court found in our client’s favour, considering in detail the relationship between what is presented to the player and the contractual terms relied upon by the operator.
In Green v Betfred (2021), we acted for Andy Green, whose winnings reached approximately £1.7 million. Betfred declined to pay, relying on an alleged malfunction and its terms and conditions. The Court again found in favour of our client, examining whether those terms had been properly incorporated and whether they met the requirements of fairness under consumer law.
The Legal Position
Disputes involving online casino winnings not being paid or betting companies withholding winnings often turn on a number of recurring issues.
A central question is whether the operator’s terms and conditions form part of the contract. For terms to be effective, they must be clearly brought to the customer’s attention. It is not sufficient for provisions relating to “malfunctions” or “technical errors” to be buried within lengthy documentation.
There is also the question of fairness. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Terms which operate heavily in favour of the operator, particularly where they seek to avoid paying winnings entirely, may be open to challenge depending on the circumstances.
Finally, the courts have considered the importance of what is actually shown to the player. Where a game displays a particular outcome, questions can arise as to whether that representation forms part of the agreement between the parties.
The Current William Hill Situation
The reported William Hill glitch appears to involve a jackpot system operating across multiple users, rather than a single isolated game outcome. This introduces additional considerations, including whether any result shown to a player was intended to be final or subject to further verification.
As with many disputes of this kind, the legal position will depend on the specific facts, including how the system operates and how the relevant terms are drafted and presented.
Further Information
Individuals who have experienced issues such as William Hill not paying winnings, or an online casino refusing to pay out, may wish to seek independent legal advice based on their particular circumstances.
Coyle White Devine Solicitors has experience in this area, including acting in the Durber and Green cases.
For further information, please contact:
enquiries@cwd-law.com or call us on 0203 301 1113
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.










