William Hill chases millions after jackpot glitch hits own customers
Table of contents
- A technical malfunction in Evoke’s shared Jackpot Drop feature incorrectly credited large sums to players at William Hill and 888 Casino, with at least one balance reported at close to £250,000.
- The operator locked affected accounts, removed the game from its platform, and contacted customers requesting the return of withdrawn funds within three days.
- William Hill offered affected players a goodwill retention of 11% of withdrawn amounts, but the offer has met resistance, with some customers disputing liability and criticising the speed of the settlement demand.
William Hill and 888 Casino are engaged in an unusual and potentially costly dispute with their own customers after a software fault caused large sums to be mistakenly credited to player accounts across Evoke’s gaming platform in mid-March 2026.
Glitch floods accounts
The error arose within the Jackpot Drop feature, a shared promotional mechanic across Evoke’s brands, causing players to believe they had won large jackpots.
Screenshots of inflated balances spread quickly on social media, with accounts showing amounts of up to around £236,000 and at least one player reporting a balance approaching £250,000 before accounts were locked.
An Evoke spokesperson said the company identified an issue with Jackpot Drop that “temporarily resulted in incorrect sums being credited to players’ balances and withdrawals being processed incorrectly”, adding that it is retrieving funds in line with its standard terms and conditions.
Once the fault was identified, affected accounts were locked, and the Jackpot Drop game was temporarily removed from the platform. The operator then contacted customers directly to request repayment of withdrawn funds.
Settlement demand meets resistance
In emails sent to impacted users, William Hill explained that the credited amounts “did not arise from valid gameplay” and referenced William Hill’s standard terms and conditions (and, where relevant, 888’s), which grant the operator the right to reverse transactions and recover funds paid out incorrectly due to technical issues.
Affected customers were offered the option to retain 11% of withdrawn amounts as a gesture of goodwill, with the remaining balance requested for return within three days, accompanied by a signed settlement agreement.
The offer applies only to funds that had already been withdrawn, not to unrealised balances that remained locked in accounts.
“We are prepared to offer a commercial resolution whereby you may retain 11% of the withdrawn amount. This offer is being made as a gesture of goodwill and does not undermine our legal rights,” the email stated.
The proposal has not been universally accepted. Customers at both William Hill and 888 Casino have complained publicly that they received “withdrawal successful” notifications before their accounts were subsequently locked and clawback requests issued, strengthening the argument that funds were withdrawn in good faith.
A number of affected players have reportedly already spent part of the money, adding a hardship dimension and underlining why the three-day repayment window has itself become a point of contention.
T&Cs, legal risk and reputational choices
Operators routinely rely on malfunction clauses in their T&Cs to recover incorrectly paid funds, and in many cases those provisions go unchallenged. The legal picture becomes more complicated when customers have already received and spent winnings they had every reason to believe were legitimate.
In 2021, Betfred lost a High Court case after refusing to pay out a £1.7 million jackpot on malfunction grounds.
In 2025, a court ruled that Paddy Power must honour a disputed £1 million jackpot, with the judge emphasising that players are entitled to rely on on-screen results as accurate and binding.
Evoke will likely argue those cases are not directly analogous: in both, the underlying game produced a genuine winning result. Here, the operator’s case rests on the claim that the credits were entirely non-gameplay-based.
That distinction may carry weight, but it has not yet been tested in court. Any litigation would also need to address the fairness of demanding rapid repayment under consumer law, in circumstances arising from the operator’s own technical failure.
Not all operators in comparable situations have taken the recovery-first route.
In 2025, Superbet honoured around €30 million in bug-generated credits following a slot malfunction in Romania, choosing to absorb the financial hit to preserve customer trust.
Pressure on Evoke
The timing is particularly sensitive for Evoke, which is conducting a formal strategic review with advisers including Morgan Stanley and Rothschild engaged to consider options, including a sale or break-up of the business, against a backdrop of net debt standing at around £1.8 billion.
The UK’s remote gaming duty increase to 40% has weighed on operator margins across the board, with Evoke among the most exposed given its heavy UK retail and online footprint, and the group has been exploring sale options as its share price remains under pressure.
A drawn-out customer dispute now adds both financial exposure and reputational risk at a moment when the company is trying to make itself attractive to potential acquirers. Bally’s has been reported among the parties considering a potential bid, though no formal offer has been confirmed.
Keep reading
About the author
Bianca Máthe
Bianca Mathe joined the iGaming industry in 2018 and has since built extensive experience across multiple verticals, working with international gaming organizations on editorial, marketing, and media strategy. She brings a strong understanding of the regulatory, commercial, and technological forces shaping the global iGaming sector.
Do you have a story worth sharing?
Send it over to our editors!
