Case Summary and Analysis: Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited

The Facts 

Ms Joan Parker-Grennan first opened an online National Lottery account on the 27th of February 2009 and, upon doing so, was required to tick a box confirming that she had read and agreed to Camelot’s Interactive Account Terms and Conditions (“Terms”)

On 25th August 2015, Ms Parker-Grennan purchased a £5 ticket to play one of the National Lottery’s Instant Win Games (“IWG”) in which prizes ranged from £5 to £1 million. To win this IWG, the player is required to match one of the “Winning Numbers” with a number in the “Your Numbers”. When playing, a flashing animation was shown announcing that Ms Parker-Grennan had won £10, as the number “15” matched both the “Winning Numbers” and “Your Numbers”. However, upon closer review, Ms Parker-Grennan noticed that the number “1” also matched, resulting in the prize of £1 million. Although there was no animation to confirm this, Ms Parker-Grennan took a screenshot of the game and claimed to Camelot that she had won £1 million, as well as the £10 which had already been credited to her account. 

Camelot, upon review, refused to pay out the £1 million to Ms Parker-Grennan, claiming that this was a coding error with their software. Camelot further explained that, when the player selects “Play” on the screen in this IWG, the random number generator (“RNG”) within the platform selects the number which corresponds with the specific prize. This number then determines the outcome of the IWG and in this case, it correlated to a prize of £10. 

Camelot referred Ms Parker-Grennan to Camelot’s “IWG Rules” and Terms, all of which were available for Ms Parker-Grennan to access. Furthermore, if Camelot were to make any updates to Terms with material effect, Ms Parker-Grennan would be notified, given the opportunity to review the changes and the Terms as a whole, and prompted to “Accept” such changes. 

The Claim 

Ms Parker-Grennan issued a claim for her winnings, highlighting the focus on the Game Details Screen which stated “Match any of the Winning Numbers” and that a player would see this stipulation as the ‘relevant contractual term’, whether or not there were animations to alert them to such winnings or not. Ms Parker-Grennan claimed that the natural and ordinary meaning of this term could indicate an individual having the possibility to win more than once in the game. Ms Parker-Grennan submitted multiple submissions primarily based on Camelot’s failure to incorporate all the circumstances of the case into the Terms that she has previously agreed to and the non-enforceability of the Terms, claiming that no consumer would have read them. 

Camelot strongly disagreed with Ms Parker-Grennan’s claim, arguing that:

1. The £10 prize is determined by the “metaphorical nanosecond” after the “play” button is selected. Therefore, the £10 prize was pre-determined and any other numbers the player selects after this shall have no difference to the determined prize outcome; 
2. The software which generates the animations and its failure to translate that the claimant has won only the £10 prize into all aspects of the pictorial display is a separate issue and the outcome of the IWG itself unaffected; and
3. The RNG determines the outcome of the IWG a nanosecond before the animation files are selected by the computer. 

In all instances, Camelot contested the claims brought by Ms Parker-Grennan, referring to the key term stating that it could “declare a Play invalid (and will not be obligated to pay any Prize) if…the outcome of a Play is displayed on the Game Play Window is inconsistent with the result of that Play as predetermined by Camelot’s Computer System.’ 

The Judgment 

Mr Justice Jay stated that there were three key issues to consider: 

1. Incorporation: What were the terms of the contract between the parties? 
2. Enforceability: Are all or any of the provisions that were incorporated rendered unenforceable because of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”)? 
3. Construction: Given (1) and (2) above, did the Claimant win the £1 million she is claiming? 

Findings 

Incorporation:

The Judge initially considered whether, as a matter of general principle, the Terms could be incorporated in the manner intended by Camelot, via hyperlinks and drop-down menus on the Game Display Screen. The Judge found that the Terms were appropriately incorporated as Ms Parker-Grennan was required to ‘click to accept’ before being able to play the IWG and that it was irrelevant that this had been done six years previously, as the Terms were updated from time to time.

The Judge furthered concluded that there were no onerous or unusual clauses which required specific signposting. Overall, the Judge concluded that the Terms had been clearly drafted and were appropriately incorporated into Camelot’s contract with Ms Parker-Grennan. 

Enforceability:

The Judge agreed with Camelot’s submission that the contractual provisions on which Ms Parker-Grennan was relying were “clearly drafted and well signposted through the various hyperlinks.” The Judge determined that the correct approach was not to consider the documentation as a whole, but to consider each clause individually to determine whether it survives the application of UTCCR. 

The Judge stated: 

“I am prepared to accept that some of these clauses may have created an imbalance, but (putting clause 12 to one side for the time being) I cannot accept the argument that there was a significant imbalance. The defendant was fully entitled to explain to players the basic philosophy of this game: namely, that it was a pure game of chance, and the outcome is determined as soon as the play button is pressed. Assuming that the animations are enabled, the outcome will also be “predetermined” since whatever the player does thereafter cannot make a difference.”

The Judge further added that there was “no want of fair and transparent dealing” by Camelot and that it was entitled to have a validation process through which it can control when players are paid by cross-checking it against the pre-determined ‘prize’. The Game Procedures were found to further support this conclusion as it clearly stated that only one prize would be issued per player and that the IWG would only be completed once the player selected ‘finish.’ 

Construction: 

The Judge considered that “interpreting the Games Procedures using ordinary contractual principles sense-checked against a modicum of flexibility and common sense” leads to the conclusion that Ms Parker-Grennan did not win a second prize of £1 million. 

Further attention was drawn to the Games Procedures and its clarification that a win would be “shown by flashing white matching numbers and a message stating what the win amount is, and that the player must then select ‘finish’ to complete the game.” In cross-referencing this provision against the IWG rules and the confirmation that the RNG had recorded the win to be a value of £10, it was concluded that the claim of the Ms Parker-Grennan’s actual winnings being £1,0000,010 cannot be accepted. 

Overall, Ms Parker-Grennan’s application for summary judgment was dismissed. 

Key-Takeaways

This case draws attention back to the issues highlighted in Green v BetFred (read our case summary here) and the need for operators to take great care in both the drafting and presentation of their Terms to ensure they can be relied upon. The principle established under the Green case is that an operator can exclude their liability to issue payment for a mistaken win, provided their Terms are clear, well signposted and fair.

Whilst this case shows similarities to Green, on which Ms Parker-Grennan sought to rely, the Judge refused to consider any proposed circumstance to this effect. It was noted that Green was a “strong case on the facts; there could be no dispute that the Claimant has won; the issue was whether the Defendant could avoid having to pay.” In this instance, the Judge found that the Terms, the function of the software and the timing of the RNG eradicated the question as to whether Ms Parker-Grennan had won the £10 prize and the £1 million prize. Whilst it is clear from the evidence presented in this case that it was a software error that caused Ms Parker-Grennan to believe she had won £1 million, Camelot’s Terms provided satisfactory protection to the operator that could not be disputed.

As such, this reinforces the key takeaways that were established in Green v BetFred:

1. The drafting of the terms and conditions must be very clear, precise and easily understood – particularly if they are onerous or unexpected to customers in any way; 
2. Consider how terms and conditions are “signposted” to customers and how significant terms are highlighted; and 
3. Review how such terms and conditions are presented to customers. Operators should pay close attention to “readability” factors such as brevity, structure, font size and spacing.

The full judgment can be accessed here. 

Article co-authored by Eve Brady, Trainee Solicitor at CMS