What happened
Jackpot Drop is a slot game with a progressive jackpot that is triggered at random. Unlike classic progressive slots, where a big win is tied to specific symbol combinations, here the jackpot can be won at any moment. Players couldn’t be certain whether the payout was the result of a genuine win or a glitch.
In letters to players, William Hill explained that a glitch had been identified during routine monitoring of the platform. It affected the Jackpot Drop game and led to funds being incorrectly credited to players’ balances and withdrawal requests being processed incorrectly. The operator maintains that the amounts credited did not arise as a result of normal gameplay.
The first reports of abnormal payouts emerged as early as 17 March 2026. Even then, players were posting screenshots on social media showing six-figure sums. William Hill froze the affected accounts and temporarily disabled Jackpot Drop.
What the operator is offering players
William Hill sent letters to the affected players demanding that they return the funds within three days. The letters included the operator’s bank details. The company offered those willing to return the money around 11% of the withdrawn amount as compensation.
For some players, this is unacceptable. Stephen Harvey, a postman and father of two, told the BBC that he had seen over £330,000 in his account and had already started looking for a property to buy. After his account was blocked, he described the incident as a “devastating blow”.
How much does this cost William Hill?
The operator’s total losses depend largely on exactly which jackpots were paid out in error. Most payouts in Jackpot Drop are small amounts, ranging from a few dozen to a few hundred pounds. Large jackpots are won much less frequently. Analysts estimate the actual losses to be in the range of £5 million to £30 million.
For Evoke, William Hill’s parent company, the scandal coincided with other difficulties. In early April, it emerged that the company was closing 200 William Hill retail outlets in the UK due to an increased tax burden following the rise in Remote Gaming Duty from 21% to 40%.
Can the operator take the winnings back?
A number of players have stated that they intend to challenge the repayment claims in court. Their argument is that, given the random nature of the jackpot mechanism, they had no way of distinguishing a genuine win from an erroneous payout.
There is already a legal precedent in the players’ favour. In March 2025, the UK High Court ordered Paddy Power to pay a player £1.1 million after the operator refused to pay, citing an incorrect animation of the win. This ruling complicates William Hill’s position, as citing a technical glitch as grounds for refusing payment is no longer a valid argument.
How far standard terms and conditions can protect an operator from its own technical failures remains an open question.
