The solicitor representing evoke customers who thought they had won life-changing sums earlier this year from an opt-in progressive jackpot, only to be told the payouts were made in error, says the scale of the glitch could be unprecedented for the industry.
EGR reported in March how evoke, the owner of William Hill and 888, admitted it discovered during a routine review that funds had been “erroneously credited” to some customer accounts that were “not correctly generated through valid or properly functioning gameplay”.
The glitch affected Jackpot Drop, an in-house-built game mechanic designed to randomly drop one of six prizes during play after users chose to add an extra 10p per round in certain games.
Affected customers took to social media to express their anger and frustration that the operator had informed them that the five- or six-figure amounts credited to their accounts was done so by mistake due to an unspecified fault.
Solicitors Ellis Jones, which specialises in handling gambling-related claims and complaints, received telephone and email enquiries “easily into three figures”, partner Paul Kanolik told EGR.
The Bournemouth-based law firm currently has around 60 clients who could eventually form part of a group legal claim against evoke.
Kanolik said: “I don’t think I’ve seen one particular incident or scandal which has affected this number of people to this extent and with these kinds of numbers involved.”
He revealed the sums involving his clients “vary quite significantly”. “There’s quite a lot in the hundreds of thousands [of pounds], and I would say there are a few that are seven-figure sums. But a large proportion are between £50,000 and a few hundred thousand.”
Kanolik also disclosed that as many as 90% of the cases on his books so far involve play with William Hill, with the remainder spread between 888 and the group’s lesser-known 777 brand.
Hit and run
It was reported by The Metro newspaper on 31 March that an incident report compiled by the operator found there were 35,072 jackpot ‘hits’ during the malfunction, compared to 518 over the same period the prior week, though evoke didn’t confirm this when contacted by EGR.
Some impacted customers managed to withdraw winnings, though evoke later sent emails requesting the money be returned. As a “goodwill gesture” the company reportedly told players they could keep 11% of funds cashed out if they returned the remainder of the balance.
“I’m not sure where the 11% comes from [and] how that has been arrived at,” Kanolik remarked. “But it is interesting that they are making offers for people to retain some of the money at least.”
Asked how the Jackpot Drop glitch had affected some of his clients, Kanolik said it has been a “devastating blow, understandably”. He added: “I think it’s had a significant impact on everyone involved – some more than others […] it’s had a big impact on their mental health.”
The BBC reported in April that 76-year-old John Riding of Burnley in Lancashire claimed he’d suffered a heart attack from the stress associated with discovering his £285,000 win on the William Hill mobile app had been replaced by £15.40.
While the BBC and other mainstream media outlets ran stories of outraged evoke customers demanding they be paid their full ‘winnings’, evoke has remained largely tight-lipped on the matter besides issuing the following statement:
“During a routine review of platform activity, we identified an issue affecting the Jackpot Drop game which temporarily resulted in incorrect sums being credited to players’ balances and withdrawals being processed incorrectly.
“Whilst we quickly identified and resolved this issue, for a short period of time funds were erroneously credited to some customer accounts that were not correctly generated through valid or properly functioning gameplay.
“We have contacted relevant customers to clarify the issue, and are in the process of retrieving the funds in line with our standard terms and conditions. We have been grateful for our customers’ understanding on this matter.”
Former William Hill CEO Ralph Topping told EGR: “They can do what they want and decide they aren’t going to pay but you[’ve] got to make your communication clear, explain it in full and have a senior guy step up to do that.
“Do you know what happened? I don’t know what happened. That’s never been explained, so no wonder they are in this situation where there’s a class action lawsuit being threatened.
“You just don’t allow situations like that to develop. I think the senior management failed to step up […] this would not have happened at William Hill when other management teams were in place.”
Last September, it came to light that Superbet honoured payouts to customers in Romania totalling €30m after a technical error was discovered by the Blackstone-backed operator.
“If I put myself in their [evoke’s] shoes,” Kanolik said, “you could say they have handled it as one might expect them to.
“They are in a position where they have effectively told a large number of customers they have won significant sums and they are now not honouring what they told people.
“So, they’re naturally looking to mitigate their position and reduce their loss exposure […] it’s not unexpected from a commercial entity in these circumstances.”
Pressed on how long it could take for a potential group action to make its way to court, Kanolik responded: “How long is a piece of string? There are so many factors involved in how long a litigation takes.
“Sometimes parties can resolve things between them. It might never get that far and reach court. Other times it goes all the way to a final hearing. Cases can take one to two years, sometimes longer, but it just depends on how that process develops.”
Other operators including Betfred and Paddy Power have been involved in high-profile legal disputes in recent years where malfunctions were the crux of the issue.
In 2021, claimant Andrew Green was awarded £1.7m by the High Court, after he was blocked from withdrawing winnings from Betfred’s app due to a system glitch.
The clauses in the Warrington-based bookmaker’s terms designed to exclude liability for game malfunctions were not clearly worded or properly highlighted, the judge ruled.
Four years later, in 2025, Corrine Durber successfully sued Paddy Power for almost £1.1m, after the Flutter-owned operator said an error meant her ‘Monster Jackpot’ payout of £1,097,132 should have been the ‘Daily Jackpot’ of £20,265.
However, Mr Justice Richie ruled the principle of ‘what you see is what you get’ applied.
When EGR contacted evoke for comment a spokesperson referred to the company’s previous statement (republished in this article).
The post Jackpot Drop claims lawyer: I’ve not seen a glitch before this widespread and with these numbers involved first appeared on EGR Intel.
Paul Kanolik of solicitors Ellis Jones says a few of the players he is now representing were awarded seven-figure payouts before William Hill and 888 parent evoke blamed a malfunction
The post Jackpot Drop claims lawyer: I’ve not seen a glitch before this widespread and with these numbers involved first appeared on EGR Intel.