Leading Romanian operator Superbet has made a stunning and hugely expensive decision to honour over €30 million in winnings that were generated after a major
Leading Romanian operator Superbet has made a stunning and hugely expensive decision to honour over €30 million in winnings that were generated after a major technical glitch on its platform. The move is being seen as a massive investment in brand trust and a bold “reputation play” in a highly competitive market.
The incident unfolded on Saturday evening when players on the Superbet platform discovered a technical error affecting the ‘Fire Blaze Red Wizard’ slot. This anomaly resulted in the game paying out a guaranteed win on every single spin. Word of this highly unusual behaviour spread rapidly across social media and online forums, leading to thousands of players taking advantage of the situation for several hours and accumulating massive balances. Superbet’s initial response was to block some 7,500 accounts that had profited from the issue.
However, in a decision that goes against standard industry practice-where winnings from obvious errors are typically voided- Superbet reversed course and chose to pay. “ We have made the decision to honour all payments,” the company said in a message to affected players. “ 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.”
In its formal statement, Superbet confirmed it was honouring the payments and that the incident’s causes were “being analysed at this moment together with our partners.”
However, the situation has become more complex after the game’s B2B supplier, Playtech, issued a statement on the matter. A Playtech spokesperson said:
“ We confirm that there are no malfunctions or gameplay issues with this or any other Playtech slot. Playtech games are operating as normal, and any reported concerns are unrelated to Playtech game functionality.“
Playtech’s statement suggests the fault did not originate with the game itself, raising questions about whether the issue stemmed from Superbet’s own platform or another third-party integration.
Regardless of the root cause, the incident is a powerful and very public reminder of the immense financial risks associated with technical failures in the iGaming ecosystem. Superbet’s decision to absorb a €30 million loss is a remarkable testament to its commitment to its brand promise.
However, with the cause of the glitch now a matter of public debate between the operator and its key supplier, the entire industry will be watching with intense interest. The saga highlights not only the importance of brand reputation, but also the critical and complex nature of technical liability between the different parties in the online gaming supply chain.
Superbet’s decision to pay out €30 million in winnings stemming from a technical glitch is a radical departure from established iGaming industry norms and represents a massive gamble on brand reputation. Standard operator terms and conditions almost universally include clauses allowing for the voiding of winnings resulting from obvious software errors or malfunctions. This is precisely the path Gala Bingo recently took in the UK under similar circumstances. Superbet’s choice to override these contractual rights in favour of a “ customer-first” approach is incredibly rare, especially given the enormous financial sums involved. It’s a bold, high-stakes marketing and brand trust play designed to solidify its image as a player-friendly operator in the fiercely competitive Romanian market, effectively turning a potential PR disaster into a statement of financial strength and reliability.
The situation is dramatically complicated by Playtech’s public denial of any fault with its slot game functionality. This transforms the narrative from a simple operator goodwill gesture into a potential B2B liability dispute. If the error did not originate with the Playtech game, the implication is that the fault lies within Superbet’s own platform or integration layers. Superbet’s statement that it is analysing the cause “with our partners” suggests an ongoing investigation, but Playtech’s pre-emptive denial puts immense pressure on the operator and raises critical questions about due diligence. Did Superbet pay out before the root cause was definitively established? Or did it pay out knowing the fault might be internal? This uncertainty clouds the “reputation play” and highlights the complexities of fault attribution in the online gaming supply chain.
Ultimately, this incident serves as a crucial case study for the entire iGaming ecosystem on multiple levels. It underscores the catastrophic financial potential of platform risk and software errors. It forces operators to weigh the immense cost of such payouts against the intangible but critical value of brand trust and customer loyalty. Perhaps most significantly, it throws a harsh spotlight on the intricate web of technical liability between operators, platform providers, and game suppliers. The final determination of fault in this case-and the financial consequences that follow-will be scrutinised intensely and could set important precedents for future B2B contracts and dispute resolution across the global iGaming industry.
