Clear Terms & Conditions in online contract meant customer did not win £1 million prize jackpot

What the Retail & Consumer sector can learn from the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Parker-Grennan v Camelot

How can online businesses draw a customer’s attention to their standard online terms and conditions (T&Cs) without testing that customer’s patience to the extent that they decide to take their custom elsewhere? This quandary was considered for the first time by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Parker-Grennan v Camelot [2024] EWCA Civ 185, and although the facts emerged in an online gambling context, the judgment has ramifications for anyone conducting business online in the retail and consumer sector. The decision illustrates what ‘good’ drafting looks like in this context and what businesses trading online should do to ensure that customers are aware of what they are signing up to. 

Background to the dispute

The claimant, Mrs Parker-Grennan, first opened an online National Lottery account in February 2009. The defendant, Camelot, was the licensed operator of the National Lottery at the time. When the claimant opened the account, she read, accepted and agreed to be bound by the defendant’s T&Cs. The facts in dispute occurred in August 2015. The claimant was playing an Instant Win Game (IWG) on the National Lottery website. This particular IWG required that the player match a set of numbers and if successful, win a prize amount that corresponded with a specific number match. The claimant matched the set of numbers that entitled her to a £10 win, and the software’s in-game animations confirmed the numbers matched and the subsequent amount won. However, she noticed another set of matching numbers which she claimed should have granted her, in addition, the grand prize of £1 million – but notably, there was no flashing animation or on-screen confirmation of this prize win. After raising the issue with the defendant, she was informed that a coding issue had generated an error in the animation software and that she had only won £10, which was a pre-determined outcome.

The claimant was unhappy with this…