• B2B gaming supplier Playtech has publicly denied any responsibility for the technical incident that led to Romanian operator Superbet paying out over €30 million in winnings.
• Playtech insists its ‘Fire Blaze Red Wizard’ slot had “no malfunctions,” creating a major liability dispute over the source of the error that caused guaranteed wins.
• In a highly unusual move, Superbet chose to honour all winnings from the glitch to protect its brand reputation, a decision that has put the operator and its supplier at odds.
• The case stands in stark contrast to a recent incident at Gala Bingo in the UK, which voided winnings from a similar technical error, citing its terms and conditions.
• The diverging responses highlight a critical debate within the iGaming industry over brand reputation versus contractual rights when dealing with costly software payout errors.

A Widening Dispute Between Operator and Supplier

London, UK - 26th September 2025 - The controversy surrounding Superbet’s massive €30 million payout in Romania has deepened significantly, as the game’s B2B supplier, Playtech, has publicly and vehemently denied that its software was to blame for the incident.

The iGaming technology giant issued a firm statement refuting earlier reports of a “software bug” in its ‘Fire Blaze Red Wizard’ slot. “We confirm that there are no malfunctions or gameplay issues with this or any other Playtech slot,” a spokesperson said. “ Playtech games are operating as normal, and any reported concerns are unrelated to Playtech game functionality.” This denial creates a major public dispute over liability between two of the industry’s biggest names.

A Tale of Two Glitches: Superbet vs. Gala Bingo

The situation at Superbet stands in stark contrast to a similar recent technical glitch in the UK at Gala Bingo. In August, a promotional bingo game malfunctioned, incorrectly awarding up to £10,000 to nearly 2,000 players.

However, Gala Bingo took the standard industry approach. It voided all the incorrect winnings, refunded the players’ original stakes, and pointed to its terms and conditions, which, like most operators, state that winnings from an obvious malfunction are void.

The ‘Reputation Play’: An Industry Outlier?

Superbet’s decision to do the opposite and honour the massive payout is therefore a highly unusual, if not unprecedented, move for an operator of its scale. The company has framed the decision as a deliberate “reputation play” to cement its brand identity.

“ We are known as the betting and casino operator that pays any winnings, regardless of the amounts. And we do not want this to change,” the company stated in a message to its players. This is a clear choice to prioritise customer trust over the contractual right to void winnings from a technical error.

The Unanswered Question of Liability

The diverging paths taken by Superbet and Gala Bingo highlight a fundamental strategic debate within the iGaming industry: what is the true cost-benefit of honouring winnings from a software bug?

More importantly for the B2B supply chain, the public denial from Playtech raises the critical question of liability. If the game supplier is not at fault, was the error on the operator’s platform or with a third-party integration? This ongoing dispute will have significant implications for future operator-supplier relationships and the fine print of technology contracts across the entire iGaming industry.