I have to agree with VWM, and to a certain extent Max too.
Using the catch-all (or
FU) clause indiscriminately as appears to be the case here to avoid paying players who have otherwise complied with promo T&Cs and have not been previously black-listed is definitely rogue behaviour that merits a rogue listing.
It is simply not conducting business with integrity imo, and by not engaging with advocates like Max, the 888.com people are refusing to justify and give grounds for their Luckyace decisions in each case, regardless of what their "we can do whatever we like" clauses say.
It's just too easy for a dishonest operator to make a unilateral judgement that a winning player has been guilty of so-called bonus abuse and then confiscate his winnings and promised bonuses without further explanation. The return of a deposit may to some extent ameliorate the wrongdoing, but it certainly doesn't excuse it in my view.
Something is badly wrong here - there are way too many complaints from diverse locations and too little explanation from 888.com - even in confidence to Max - for comfort.
You don't get this sort of thing happening at reputable white labelers like St Minver (as one example) afaik. The false use of the eCOGRA seal is another negative indicator (afraid I have no confidence in the
IGC being any use here)
This is also setting a perilous precedent for white labeled operations, whereby any operator who has perhaps miscalculated a promo or is for some other reason feeling too much pain from a misguided promo offer can merely roll out the
FU clause and duck both bonus and win obligations at will.
I don't think the
FU clause should be allowed to stand between 888.com/Luckyace and a blacklisting if this issue is not addressed in a more communicative fashion by 888.com.
And Max is absolutely right - players need to take a very close look at this affair before giving any business to Luckyace.