“Rules for Interactive Instant Win Games Edition 12.1 effective10th August 2015 These Rules for Interactive Instant Win Games (the "Rules") apply when You play any National Lottery Interactive Instant Win Game. Each Instant Win Game also has its own Game Procedures that apply, and certain Instant Win Games may also have their own Game Specific Rules that apply from time to time. You can view all National Lottery Rules and Procedures, and the Account Terms and Privacy Policy, on the National Lottery website. You can also get copies of these documents by calling the Customer Care Team on 0845 278 8000 or by writing to The National Lottery at PO Box 251, Watford WD18 9BR. Please note that calls from a BT line are charged at your calling plan’s standard network rate. Charges for mobile or other providers might vary. … 3. Games of Chance You acknowledge that: 3.1 Instant Win Games are games of chance and the outcome of all Instant Win Games is predetermined at the point You buy a Play or start a Try Game. The outcome of an Instant Win Game is not affected by You exercising any skill or judgement. 3.2 The outcomes of Plays are based on probabilities within the Prize Structure and not from a limited pool or range of Plays. The chances of winning at each Prize level in an Instant Win Game are, therefore, exactly the same for each Play in that Instant Win Game and the chances are not affected by previous Plays or the number of Prizes already paid for that Instant Win Game. 4. Claiming a Prize 4.1 Subject to Rule 5.4, You can only claim a Prize if You are the holder of an Account with the relevant Winning Play. … 4.4 You can only claim the Prize that Your Winning Play is eligible for. You cannot claim any other Prize, or any otherwise unclaimed Prize in that particular Instant Win Game. … 6. Validation Requirements 6.1 Before a Prize can be paid on a Play, it must be successfully validated in line with Camelot’s reasonable validation procedures adopted from time to time. Camelot’s decision about whether the Play is valid will be final and binding. 6.2 Without limiting the effect of Rule 6.1, Camelot will declare a Play invalid (and will not, therefore, pay any Prize) if: (a) the Play is the result of an act by You or another person that was intended to increase the chances of You or that person winning a Prize in the relevant Pay to Play Game above the chances enjoyed by other Players of that Pay to Play Game, or to increase that Prize; or (b) the Play is counterfeit, all or part of the Play has been forged, or the Play fails to pass Camelot’s validation and security checks; or (c) the Prize claim is not received within the relevant Claim Period; or (d) the Play Number for the Play is not on Camelot’s official list of Winning Plays, or the relevant Prize for the Winning Play with that Play Number has been paid previously; or (e) the details associated with the Play Number of a Play do not match Camelot’s official records of that Play Number; or (f) Camelot reasonably believes that the Play was bought by or on behalf of a person falling in one of the categories in Rule 1.6. 6.3 Without limiting the effect of Rule 6.1, Camelot may declare a Play invalid (and will not be obliged to pay any Prize) if: (a) Camelot reasonably believes that the person claiming the Prize is not the holder of the relevant Account or that person’s duly authorised representative, or that the information provided by the person claiming the Prize is incomplete or has been altered or tampered with; or (b) the Play has not been issued or sold by Camelot; or (c) the Play Number, Play Symbols and Captions (or any other unique feature of the Play) don’t match exactly those on Camelot’s Computer System for the Instant Win Game that the Play relates to; or (d) the Play is defective, in whole or in part; or (e) the outcome of a Play as displayed on the Game Play Window is inconsistent with the result of that Play as predetermined by Camelot’s Computer System; or (f) the distribution, frequency or amounts of Prizes materially differ from that set out in the Prize Structure for a particular Instant Win Game. … 11. Limitation of Liability 11.1 Where instructed by the Commission or in appropriate circumstances, Camelot will, or may (in its discretion provided it is acting reasonably), declare that a Play or an Instant Win Game is defective. In these circumstances, all relevant Plays of that Instant Win Game and all relevant Prizes won will be void and Camelot will either: (a) give the affected Player an opportunity to play another Play of equivalent price; or (b) refund to the affected Player the amount paid by that Player for the defective Play. Camelot will decide which of (a) or (b) above shall apply. You do not have the right to cancel a Play and except as set out in this Rule 11.1 and Rule 12.1, no refunds will be given in any circumstances. No interest will be payable in respect of any refunds made. 11.2 If Camelot is fully satisfied after proper and careful enquiries that a cancellation of a Play was wholly and directly the result of Camelot’s fraud, negligence or error, and that Play would, but for that cancellation, have been a Winning Play, then Camelot will not refund the cost of the Play and Camelot’s only liability will be to pay an amount equal to the Prize You would have been entitled to if the cancellation did not take place. 11.3 Camelot’s only obligation is to pay the Prizes won in any Instant Win Game to the rightful owners of Winning Plays, or provide a refund in the circumstances set out in Rules 11.1 and 12.1. Without limiting the effect of Rules 11.1 and 11.5, Camelot will not be liable in any circumstances for any loss of whatever nature other than the non-payment of a Prize or the non-payment of a refund You are entitled to under these Rules. In particular but without limitation, Camelot will not be liable for any loss of profits, special, indirect or consequential loss, suffered or incurred by You (or any holder or owner of a Play, any person claiming a Prize during the Claim Period or any other person) that arises out of the withdrawal of any Instant Win Game or from the participation or non-participation of You or any person in any Instant Win Game. This includes the loss, for whatever reason, of the chance to participate in that Instant Win Game. … 12. Disputes and Camelot’s Decisions 12.1 Camelot’s decision about whether or not a Play is a Winning Play, or in relation to any other matter or dispute arising from the payment or non-payment of Prizes, will be final and binding provided that it is a reasonable decision (and subject to Rule 12.4). Without limiting the effect of the previous sentence, Rule 11.1, Section 12.3 of the Account Terms, following any such decision made by Camelot, Camelot may (at its discretion) reimburse the cost of the Play or replace the disputed Play with a Play for any current Instant Win Game of the same price. 12.2 The remedy in Rule 12.1 will be the Player’s sole and exclusive remedy, and any reimbursement or replacement will fully discharge Camelot from any liability in respect of such a dispute (subject to Rule 12.4). Camelot will not be liable to pay any interest in respect of any reimbursement made under this Rule 12. 12.3 Camelot may withhold payment of a Prize and/or make an equivalent payment into court until any dispute has been resolved. 12.4 Camelot operates a written procedure for handling Player complaints. Information about the complaints procedure will be accessible via the Site. Once You have completed the internal complaints process, and if Your complaint concerns a financial entitlement in relation to an Instant Win Game, You are entitled to refer Your dispute to alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”). The finding of the ADR provider will be binding on Camelot in respect of disputes up to and including£10,000 . 13. General 13.1 Any person who buys a Play or submits a Play for validation or who claims a Prize in whatever capacity, agrees to be bound by the provisions of any applicable legislation, these Rules, the Privacy Policy, the Account Terms, the Game Procedures, any Game Specific Rules that apply (all as amended from time to time) and any other rules or procedures, statements or explanations Camelot may issue in respect of that Instant Win Game (including any statements or explanations set out on the Game Details Screen). 13.2 Camelot may change these Rules, the relevant Game Procedures and any Game Specific Rules applicable to the Instant Win Games, and the Account Terms (including the Privacy Policy) at any time. These changes will be effective from the date of their publication on the Site (or any earlier time Camelot states), or on notification to You that the changes have taken place (whichever takes place sooner) and will apply to Plays bought after the date on which the changes become effective, and/or Plays bought before that date if reasonable in the circumstances. Notification will be by email, Account notification, post or any other form of communication reasonably decided by Camelot. You agree that You will be bound by the changes when You next play an Instant Win Game, access Your Account or claim a Prize after the changes have become effective, or (where relevant) when You expressly accept the changes, whichever takes place first. 13.3 These Rules, the Account Terms, the Privacy Policy, the applicable Game Procedures and any applicable Game Specific Rules, and the statements and explanations set out on the Game Details Screen set out the full extent of Camelot’s obligations and liabilities to You in relation to Instant Win Games and form the contract between Camelot and You for each Instant Win Game. If there is any conflict between these documents, they will apply in the following order (unless Camelot states otherwise): (a) the applicable Game Specific Rules (taking first priority); (b) the applicable Game Procedures; (c) these Rules; (d) the Account Terms (excluding, for this purpose, the Privacy Policy); (e) the statements and explanations appearing on the Game Details Screen; (f) the Privacy Policy. If any provision (or part of a provision) in any of the documents mentioned in Rule 13.3 is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void and/or unenforceable, that decision will only affect the particular provision (or part of the provision) and will not, in itself, make the other provisions void or unenforceable. … 15. Definitions The following words and terms will have the meanings given to them below when used in these Rules (unless the context clearly indicates otherwise). … Account Terms: The Account Terms available on the Site that apply to Accounts. … Camelot’s Computer System: The computer systems used by or on behalf of Camelot from time to time to operate National Lottery games, administer Accounts, facilitate Plays and pay Prizes. … Game Details Screen: The screen on the Site that displays details of a particular Instant Win Game. … Game Procedures: A written document issued by Camelot for a particular Instant Win Game in addition to these Rules that includes the Instant Win Game name, the price per Play, how a Prize is won, the Prize Structure and Play Style, and any other relevant information for the Instant Win Game. … Game Specific Rules: Any rules or conditions issued by Camelot in addition to or in substitution for these Rules, which apply only to a particular Instant Win Game. … Instant Win Game: means a Pay to Play Game or a Try Game. … Pay to Play Game: A National Lottery instant win game which is available to play on the Site (following registration and provision of debit card details) and in which You have a chance to win a Prize. Pay to Play Games may not display correctly on, or be playable from, all devices used to access them. Play: An entry into a Pay to Play Game in line with the Play Style for that Pay to Play Game. Play Number: The number which is unique to and which identifies a particular Play, and which is recorded on Camelot’s Computer System. … Play Symbol and Caption: A symbol and (if appropriate) the caption that appears in the Game Play Window which is used to determine whether or not a Prize may have been won. Any Play Symbols and Captions will be specified in the relevant Game Procedures. … Prize: A prize won by a Player in a Pay to Play Game. Reference in these Rules to payment of a Prize includes the awarding of non-cash Prizes. Prize Claim Form: The form issued by Camelot which is required to be completed and submitted to be eligible to claim certain Prizes in line with these Rules. Prize Structure: The value of Prizes and odds of winning in an individual Instant Win Game as determined by Camelot and set out in the Game Procedures for the relevant Game. … Validation Requirements: Camelot’s Play validation requirements referred to in Rule 6 or as otherwise determined by Camelot from time to time. Winning Play: A Play which entitles You to a Prize and which meets all the Validation Requirements.”
“£20 Million Cash Spectacular Win up to£1 Million £5 per play. Odds: 1 in 2.86 ” “(The rubric under the second group of numbers reads, “Match any of the WINNING NUMBERS to any of YOUR NUMBERS to win PRIZE”
'Match any of the WINNING NUMBERS to any of YOUR NUMBERS to win PRIZE. Find a symbol to win that PRIZE automatically. Find a symbol to win DOUBLE the PRIZE shown.'
“The dispute between the parties is actually quite a narrow one. The Defendant says that the Terms mean that the Claimant is bound by what it intended the outcome of the Game to have been, despite the fact that was not what the Game was programmed to do, and despite the fact that what the Game was programmed to do accorded with what the Relevant Contractual Term said it could do.”
“It is not necessary that the conditions contained in the standard form document should have been read by the person receiving it, or that they should have been made subjectively aware of their import or effect. The rules which have been laid down by the courts regarding notice in such circumstances are three in number: (1) If the person receiving the document did not know that there was writing or printing on it, they are not bound (although the likelihood that a person will not know of the existence of writing or printing is now probably very low); (2) If they knew that the writing or printing contained or referred to conditions, they are bound; (3) If the party tendering the document did what was reasonably sufficient to given the other party notice of the conditions, and if the other party knew that there was writing or printing on the document, but did not know it contained conditions, then the conditions will become the terms of the contract between them.”
“This brings me to the question whether this clause was part of the contract. Mr Sofer urged us to hold that the warehousemen did not do what was reasonably sufficient to give notice of the conditions within Parker v South Eastern Railway Co. I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”
“This judgment is unlikely to be improved by a linguistic analysis of whether there is a difference between harsh, onerous, unusual and/or extraordinary (or outlandish). I prefer onerous and unusual, because that is the phrase in the majority of cases, but the test may amount to the same whether one uses the phrase extortionate, extraordinarily harsh, or any permutation of those words …”
“21. In my view, although Rule 5 does turn an apparent winner into a loser, it cannot by any normal use of language be called 'onerous' or 'outlandish'. It does not impose any extra burden upon the claimant, unlike the clause in Interfoto. It does not seek to absolve the defendant from liability for personal injuries negligently caused, unlike the clause in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking. It merely deprives the claimant of a windfall for which he has done very little in return. He bought two newspapers, although in fact he could have acquired a card and discovered the hotline number without doing either. He made a call to a premium rate number, which will have cost him some money and gained the newspaper some, but only a matter of pennies, not pounds. 22. The more difficult question is whether the rule is 'unusual' in this context. The judge found that the claimant knew that there was a limit on the number of prizes and that there were relevant rules. Miss Platell's evidence was that these games and competitions always have rules. Indeed I would accept that this is common knowledge. This is not a situation in which players of the game would assume that the newspaper bore the risk of any mistake of any kind which might lead to more people making a claim than had been intended. Some people might assume that the 'get out' rule would provide for the prize to be shared amongst the claimants. Some might assume that it would provide for the drawing of lots. In the case of a single prize some might think drawing lots more appropriate; but it seems to me impossible to say that either solution would be 'unusual'. There is simply no evidence to that effect. Such evidence as there is was to the effect that such rules are not unusual. 23. In any event, the words 'onerous or unusual' are not terms of art. They are simply one way of putting the general proposition that reasonable steps must be taken to draw the particular term in question to the notice of those who are to be bound by it and that more is required in relation to certain terms than to others depending on their effect. In the particular context of this particular game, I consider that the defendants did just enough to bring the Rules to the claimant's attention. There was a clear reference to rules on the face of the card he used. There was a clear reference to rules in the paper containing the offer of a telephone prize. There was evidence that those rules could be discovered either from the newspaper offices or from back issues of the paper. The claimant had been able to discover them when the problem arose.”
“46. In my judgment, the fact that Clause 12.1 subjects Camelot's decision to a requirement of reasonableness, means that it could not be described as onerous. If Camelot's decision was unreasonable, in Wednesbury terms, then the Claimants could successfully challenge it, and would not be bound by it. Such clauses are not unusual and there is considerable jurisprudence in relation to how the reasonableness of any decision should be assessed. It does not abrogate any statutory rights. A consumer who disagreed with a decision taken by Camelot would still be able to pursue that dispute by the statutory ADR scheme, as well as by litigation, but would have to demonstrate that Camelot's decision was unreasonable to a Wednesbury standard. The evidence submitted on this application is that the Rules have been approved by the Gambling Commission, which would presumably not have done so if it considered that these were in any way inconsistent with the licensing objectives under theGambling Act 2005 . There could be no real prospect of success in challenging clause 12.1 on such ground, in my view.”
“Unfair Terms 5. —(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair. Assessment of unfair terms 6. —(1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent. (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate– (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange. Written contracts 7. —(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language. (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12. Effect of unfair term 8. —(1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer. (2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term. SCHEDULE 2 INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR 1. Terms which have the object or effect of– … (b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him; (c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone; … (f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract; … (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; … (n) limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;”
“A term falling within the scope of the regulations is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer in a manner or to an extent which is contrary to the requirement of good faith. The requirement of significant imbalance is met if a term is so weighted in favour of the supplier as to tilt the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract significantly in his favour. This may be by the granting to the supplier of a beneficial option or discretion or power, or by the imposing on the consumer of a disadvantageous burden or risk or duty. The illustrative terms set out in Schedule 3 to the regulations provide very good examples of terms which may be regarded as unfair; whether a given term is or is not to be so regarded depends on whether it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract. This involves looking at the contract as a whole. But the imbalance must be to the detriment of the consumer; a significant imbalance to the detriment of the supplier, assumed to be the stronger party, is not a mischief which the regulations seek to address. The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer. Fair dealing requires that a supplier should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any other factor listed in or analogous to those listed in Schedule 2 of the regulations. Good faith in this context is not an artificial or technical concept; nor, since Lord Mansfield was its champion, is it a concept wholly unfamiliar to British lawyers. It looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice. Regulation 4(1) lays down a composite test, covering both the making and the substance of the contract, and must be applied bearing clearly in mind the objective which the regulations are designed to promote.”
“Importantly, the Regulations do not operate by precluding reliance on the contractual term in cases where it would be unfair to do so. Their prescription is absolute and binary: the term is either unfair, and hence unenforceable, or not. Its unfairness must therefore be judged by reference to all situations in which it might potentially be applicable.”
“102.8. Clause 16 has the potential to exclude the right of the consumer to hold the trader to a contract which had been entered into upon the basis of an error which would not, under the general law, render that contract void. Accordingly, there is an imbalance in the parties' rights, to the detriment of the consumer. The question is whether that imbalance is significant. In my judgment, it is not. On its proper construction, it applies only in limited, defined circumstances in which, objectively viewed, such an error has occurred. Mr Wandowicz's description of the clause as a safety-net, which does not affect the everyday operation of the contract, is apt. Lest I be wrong in that conclusion, I consider below whether any significant imbalance is contrary to the requirement of good faith. 102.10. Further, I accept Mr Wandowicz's submission that Paddy Power has a legitimate interest in correcting erroneous bets. Such detriment as the consumer experiences in those circumstances is the deprivation of a windfall arising from a bet made in error (recognising that the clause does not oblige Paddy Power to give credit for the winnings which the intended bet would have generated). The clause is not punitive. Mr James' submission that Paddy Power's ability to lay off the full extent of the bet whilst invoking Clause 16 itself renders the provision unfair is misplaced. The ability to lay off all or part of a bet outside the consumer contract (which may or may not be possible in any given circumstances) is a separate matter from any imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under their own contract and does not operate to the detriment of the consumer under that contract, nor is it contrary to the requirement of good faith. All such matters inform my conclusion that (1) Paddy Power, dealing fairly and equitably with the reasonable consumer in Mr Longley’s position, could reasonably assume that such a consumer would have agreed to Clause 16 in individual contract negotiations, and (2) that a reasonable consumer would have agreed to that term.”