Can You Sue a Casino or Sportsbook That Refuses to Pay? The Court Cases (Jackpots, Voided Bets, Frozen Accounts)

Yes, a player can sue a casino or sportsbook that refuses to pay, and courts have ordered payment of GBP 1,722,500.24 (Green v Betfred, 2021), GBP 1,097,132.71 (Durber v Paddy Power, 2025) and EUR 464,806.96 (Goldbet, Austria, 2016), but the same courts have refused USD 41.8 million (McKee, Iowa, 2015), GBP 7.7 million (Ivey, 2017) and USD 14.2 million (Bavas, Iowa, 2026). What decides it?

The short answer

What decides a withheld-winnings case is which document counts as the contract: where the game rules say the screen decides, the player has won; where the posted rules cap the prize or reserve a malfunction or obvious-error defense, the operator has won; and where the operator alleges cheating or a rule breach, the court tries the facts.

The cases are grouped by fact pattern in the hub on casino patron lawsuits over unpaid jackpots, malfunctions and exclusions.

Online, the first question is often whether a court may hear the case at all (Michigan, 22 July 2025) and whether the terms send it to arbitration. The wider explainers sit in the guides to how gambling lawsuits and settlements work.

Amounts are the sums claimed or awarded in the judgments; Green and Durber carry the status judgment, payment is reported by press only; checked 14 November 2026.

What the courts have actually decided

The table lists every withheld-winnings decision in the record by fact pattern, with the court, docket and date of each.

Withheld-winnings cases by fact pattern, as of 14 November 2026

A complaint states one side's allegations, and only the court's orders decide anything, so the table lists rulings and marks pending complaints as pending. The sportsbook side of the record is indexed under sports betting lawsuits: DraftKings, FanDuel, PrizePicks.

Jackpot on the screen, "malfunction" from the casino: who the rules favor

A displayed jackpot is paid or not depending on what the game rules say about the display, and the English and US courts have read their rules in opposite directions.

England: the game rules beat the small print (Green, Durber)

Foster J gave Andrew Green summary judgment on 7 April 2021 ([2021] EWHC 842 (QB)) for the GBP 1,722,500.24 his online blackjack session showed on 26 January 2018: Betfred's malfunction clauses did not cover a hidden defect, were not incorporated and were neither transparent nor fair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

In Durber the court gave summary judgment on 5 March 2025 ([2025] EWHC 498 (KB)) for the GBP 1,097,132.71 Monster Jackpot shown on 18 October 2020 after a supplier mapping error.

The game rules said the screen decides and took priority over the general terms, and Paddy Power had already paid GBP 20,265.14. The ruling is described on the page for Durber v Paddy Power GBP 1.097m jackpot ruling.

United States: the posted rules are the contract (McKee, Bookman, Inserra) and Michigan opens the courthouse door (Davis)

The Iowa Supreme Court held on 24 April 2015 (McKee v. Isle of Capri Casinos, No. 14-0802, 864 N.W.2d 518) that a penny slot's USD 41,797,550.16 bonus display was not payable because the posted rules, with a USD 10,000 maximum and a malfunction clause, were the contract, and the player was owed USD 1.85.

Two later disputes are unresolved. Bookman (Queens County, filed 14 June 2017) concerns a displayed USD 42,949,672.76 that the New York Gaming Commission ruled a malfunction, with no court ruling found; Inserra (New Jersey, filed August 2025) concerns a USD 2.5 million Wheel of Fortune jackpot, pending, with the court not confirmed.

Online, the forum comes first. In the Michigan Supreme Court ruling that an online gambler can sue BetMGM, decided on 22 July 2025 (No. 166281), the court held that the Lawful Internet Gaming Act does not abrogate common-law claims.

The player says about USD 3.3 million of roulette winnings were refused as a malfunction after a USD 100,000 withdrawal was paid; the case went back to Wayne County and the merits are untried.

Voided bets: obvious error, palpable error and the cases that tested them

Sportsbooks cancel accepted bets under "obvious error" or "palpable error" rules, and in 2026 two US federal courts upheld cancellations under those rules: Judge Hanlon granted DraftKings summary judgment on 22 September 2026 in McAfee v.

DraftKings (S.D. Ind. 1:24-cv-01168) over 140 Lakers-Nuggets bets of 24 October 2023 cancelled after they won, under Indiana Code 4-38-5-6, and the Southern District of Iowa did the same on 8 July 2026 in Bavas v. DraftKings (4:25-cv-00185) over five USD 325 parlays showing USD 14,204,782.26.

The McAfee class of 99 bettors was certified on 9 December 2025, and a USD 100 parlay would have paid USD 150,000; the final judgment entry and any appeal are not confirmed in the court record. The case page is DraftKings voided Lakers-Nuggets bets class action.

A regulator answered differently. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission let DraftKings void the same erroneous totals but ordered bettors paid three times their stake, per a secondary report, and that is a regulatory order, not a court ruling.

Ohio sportsbooks voided about USD 77 million of wagers in 13 months, according to a press analysis of regulator records, not a court figure. The wider DraftKings lawsuits page lists every filing.

The Indiana statute is the reason the McAfee result is not a general rule: it lets a sportsbook void a bet for an obvious error, and courts elsewhere read operator terms on their own wording. The text of the Iowa summary-judgment ruling and any Eighth Circuit appeal are not confirmed in the court record.

In England, Longley v Paddy Power ([2022] EWHC 977 (QB), 29 April 2022) dismissed a GBP 257,400 claim: there was no contract for the misrecorded GBP 13,000 stake, and the player had "snapped up" a known mistake.

In Austria the Supreme Court awarded EUR 464,806.96 in Goldbet (6 Ob 45/16k, 30 May 2016) because a one-sided right to cancel bets after the event is grossly disadvantageous, and held bets above the Upper Austrian stake limit void (2 Ob 138/22s, 27 September 2022), which dismissed a claim of EUR 23,577.42 and left earlier winnings repayable.

Frozen accounts, blocked withdrawals and closed accounts

No US court has yet decided a frozen-account or blocked-withdrawal claim on the merits: Manganaro v. FanDuel (Camden County, filed 24 March 2022, USD 300 of a deposit withheld as "you can only withdraw winnings") and Avila v.

DraftKings (D. Mass. 1:24-cv-13165, filed 23 December 2024, account closed with USD 100 inside) are pending with no ruling in the record.

Leong, over locked contest funds, was reported settled-preliminary in April 2020 for USD 102,000, mostly fees, with USD 150 site credit per class member, and its final approval is not confirmed. The operator side of those claims is under FanDuel lawsuits.

In Europe, McCann v bet365 (Belfast, GBP 1,009,960 voided for alleged third-party funding) was discontinued in June 2019 per press, terms unknown. Phelan v Ladbrokes Ireland (EUR 319,440 double capped at EUR 100,000) was paid in April 2025 after High Court proceedings issued on 11 February 2025, per press.

The Phelan bet was a EUR 30 each-way double of 19 April 2024, and the bookmaker held the payout while an Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board inquiry was open.

Two Oviedo courts annulled Bet365 and Betfair account-closing clauses in July 2021 (press only), and the Football Index insolvency ruling ([2021] EWHC 1542 (Ch)) left open bets outside the player protection trust, with about GBP 90 million of stakes trapped per the Gambling Commission (judgment text not retrieved). Arbitration clauses shape every US case; see gambling cases and arbitration clauses.

Curaçao's courts made master license holders pay unpaid balances (Hoge Raad, 20 December 2024, Cyberluck, TRY 620,000; Antillephone, HUF 183,588,499.88, 11 December 2023; Parimatch USD 19,630 and GLD EUR 66,400, March 2023).

The Joint Court reversed two 2026 appeals on bonus and duplicate-account terms (Webbyslot, 28 July 2026; the 4.51 BTC case, 18 August 2026); the series is on the page for gambling lawsuits in Curaçao.

Cheating and advantage play: Ivey in London and Atlantic City

Where the operator proves cheating the winnings are not payable: the UK Supreme Court held on 25 October 2017 ([2017] UKSC 67) that Phil Ivey's edge sorting at Crockfords was cheating, so GBP 7.7 million stayed with the casino, and the District of New Jersey held on 21 October 2016 (1:14-cv-02283) that the same technique breached his contract with the Borgata, fixing damages at about USD 10.1 million on 15 December 2016 before a settlement on undisclosed terms in July 2020. The English ruling is the Ivey v Genting edge-sorting judgment.

Complain first, then sue: regulator, ADR, court

Every operator's terms route a dispute to its own complaints process, then to the regulator or an approved dispute body, and the court record shows why the paper trail matters: McKee lost on the posted rules, Davis won the right to a courtroom because the regulator was not the only forum, and Green and Durber won on what the rules said.

US state regulators take patron disputes (Michigan, and the New York Gaming Commission finding in Bookman), and a court filing can follow. Arbitration clauses in online terms may send the claim elsewhere. State-level cases are indexed under gambling lawsuits in the United States.

In Great Britain licensed operators must offer an approved dispute-resolution body, the Gambling Commission does not resolve individual disputes, and courts applied the Consumer Rights Act in Green and Durber. In Ireland, Phelan was paid only after proceedings were issued. The British record is under gambling lawsuits in the United Kingdom.

Differences by country and state

The deciding document and the first forum differ by jurisdiction, and the table gives both for every system on record.

Who decides and what wins, by jurisdiction

The full list of systems, with every court and decision, is under gambling lawsuits by country.

What this page does not cover

Lottery tickets are a different claim: who bought the winning ticket, whether a pool existed, whether a retailer kept a prize. The record's CAD 50 million lost-ticket claim (dismissed in 2017) sits under lottery lawsuits: ticket disputes and jackpot claims.

Losses you want back are not withheld winnings, and that question has its own page, can you get gambling losses back.

Debts the casino is suing you for (Ritz, Les Ambassadeurs, Aspinall's) sit on the patron hub. Tax on a jackpot is a matter for the IRS, and settlement payments are covered by are gambling settlement payments taxable.

Questions people ask

Can you sue a casino at all, and on what grounds?

Yes, on five grounds, and withheld winnings is one of the two that have actually paid players; the full list with outcomes is on the owner page, can you sue a casino or sportsbook: grounds that have worked.

Can you get compensation for gambling losses?

Usually not, except by country: void-contract refunds in Germany and Austria, illegal-game statutes in Washington and Kentucky, and no payout estimate exists for any case that has not settled. See can you get gambling losses back.

Why is my sportsbook not letting me cash out, and can I sue?

The complaints on record allege two patterns, deposits withheld until wagered (Manganaro v. FanDuel) and accounts closed for alleged multi-accounting with the balance kept (Avila v. DraftKings), and neither has been decided; a complaint states one side's allegations. For DraftKings, see DraftKings lawsuits.

The same goes for FanDuel: the claim is pending and no court has ruled. The company page is FanDuel lawsuits.

How long can an online casino hold your winnings?

No court in the record has set a time limit; the only dated answers are regulatory (France's ANJ fined an operator EUR 5,000 on 14 January 2025 for slow withdrawals) and the Irish case where a bookmaker held a EUR 100,000 payout for over a year pending an integrity inquiry and paid in April 2025 after proceedings were issued, per press.

Did Betfred and Paddy Power actually pay?

The court record stops at judgment: Betfred said it would not appeal and the Racing Post reported payment, and Paddy Power was reported to be reviewing the Durber judgment; neither payment is in a court document, so both cases carry the status "judgment", not "paid". The Green ruling is on the page for Betfred v Green GBP 1.7m blackjack ruling.