888 Casino - Rogue

"Poor business ethics"

Ethically challenged predatory marketing

CM Rating
1/10
User Rating
1/10

Ethically challenged predatory marketing

Not Accepted
Responsive

Overview

First Impression

888.com has in the past utilized unorthodox marketing methods to include Blackhat SEO and Blog spamming. They were tossed into the Rogue Pit in April 2006, but reviewed for a year beginning in November 2006. There were no further incidents, so they were removed from the pit.

Over the years though, we have had numerous complaints of players unknowingly playing at their white label casinos and being either bonus banned or winnings/deposits confiscated. These casinos will not identify themselves as 888.com/Cassava white labels when signing up – only when they confiscate your winnings will they do this.

It’s predatory, unethical, and rogue.

888.com has a policy to not have any contact with Casinomeister concerning player issues. We have a No Can Do policy with these guys. So, play here at your own risk.

Mobile Experience

Responsive

The games look real swell on your mobile. But really? Do you want to take that chance?

  • iPhone
  • IPad
  • Android
  • Windows Phone

General Information

Website
888.com
Software
Ash Gaming , Blueprint Gaming , Electracade , GamesOS , IGT , Netent , NextGen Gaming , Rival , WMS
Casino Reps
Live Games
Yes
Loyalty program
Yes
Founded
1997
Licensing Jurisdiction
UKGC, Gibraltar, Romania, Ireland
Certified
No
No Deposit Bonus
No
Jackpots
Accredited
Not Accredited
Publicly traded
Yes
Affiliate program
888affiliates
Mobile
Yes
Other products
Country restrictions:
Israel, Turkey, United States
Phone contact
Contact info
operations@cassava.net

User Comments and Experiences

User’s Testimonial, experiences and Complaints from our Casino Forum

29th May 2012 by Maxd:

888/Cassava: all related properties are ignoring player complaints

As regular readers will know we’ve had a rocky relationship with 888.com and their related 888 Holdings and Cassava Ltd properties. To make a long story short that whole business has come down to head office saying about 8 months ago that they require a signed statement of authorisation from the player before they will discuss that player’s issue with us. Since then they have not cooperated on a single player issue. A recent

PAB

against 888 brought this to where we are today, this Warning:

  • a player filed a PABagainst 888 — they had been ejected from the casino for “employing a gaming strategy” — and when asked they submitted the requested signed statement.
  • through the forum rep — who acts as the go-between to the casinos and/or head office — the casino’s reply was “operations have given their answer to him and it won’t change”.
  • we said “thank you but we need to see the case details”, they ignored those requests.
  • when asked why they were not honouring their agreement to discuss the player’s case after the requested statement had been provided they said “there was no point”.
  • after many attempts to get them to state whether they would discuss the player’s case or not they finally replied (again, through the forum rep) “due to the fact that the issue was resolved they are not willing to share any details on this issue”.
  • the player reported that 888 hadn’t bothered to contact him, never mind offering a resolution. Presumably the casino people mean that they “resolved” it to their satisfaction. Hardly the same thing.

The bottom line is that this casino group has no intention to discuss player cases. The “permission statement” from the player and all that is just a stalling technique: we run around trying to satisfy their request(s) while they sit on their hands and ignore the player issues at their leisure. When everyone does what they have asked they simply make a unilateral statement that they’ve made their decision and won’t change it, that there is “no point” to discussing the player issue(s).

In truth Cassava and its properties have never properly cooperated with the player complaints process when it comes to the involvement of third parties like us: their operating procedure has always been to decide players fates as they and they alone see fit. If the player or anyone else doesn’t like it that’s too bad. If the truth gets bent, broken or thrown out the window as they “resolve” these issues what do they care? No one can touch them. It has been this way with these casinos for well over a decade. Occasionally they’ll make noises that they’re willing to be more cooperative but it always ends up back in the same place: they control player monies and the door to discussing complaints is closed.

I have no doubt that 888 and their parent company have become exceedingly wealthy from the losses of their players. Unfortunately this seems to have left them perfectly happy to act alone in dictating terms and everyone else be damned. So be it, but that is a toxic environment for players: nobody is perfect and a company holding the purse strings of player accounts must be accountable to those players, either directly or through a player’s designated representative if necessary. Because of their closed door policy 888 and the rest of their lot are accountable to no one. As such this Warning is wholly deserved:

Warning: 888 and related 888/Cassava properties are ignoring player issues and will not discuss player complaints. Players must be aware that Cassava considers itself the final authority on player complaints and that they offer no recourse for players who are dissatisfied with the company’s decision(s) against them: the player is totally at their mercy, for better or worse. The only alternative — such as it is — is to turn to the licensing body, Gibraltar or try 

eCOGRA

. We can offer no assistance if things go wrong between the player and these casinos. Players are advised to avoid these casinos unless they are willing to accept these conditions.

31st August 2017 by GrandMaster:

“UK Gambling Commission imposes £7.8 million penalty on 888”

Pros

Easy to remember URL

Cons

Too many complaints

Predatory in nature

Questionable ethics

Verdict

Casinomeister Rating

Software
Jurisdiction
Reverse Time
Cashout Time
Weekly Withdrawal Limits
Meister Points
Responsiveness to complaints

Bryan's Verdict

Ethically challenged predatory marketing

This casino may have had some massive marketing in the past (mostly blackhat SEO and other dodgy adventures). I would avoid this casino and its brethren.

Rating
1/10

Forum

Replies: 8
Views: 1169
Last post by ReggieMac
3 months ago
Cassava Enterprises took £3000 Started by JENNY24, 3 months ago
Replies: 18
Views: 2486
Last post by ReggieMac
3 months ago
888 being investigated Started by quber, 6 months ago
Replies: 3
Views: 1373
Last post by maxd
6 months ago
Replies: 15
Views: 4228
Last post by quber
6 months ago
Replies: 2
Views: 9555
Last post by maxd
7 months ago
Replies: 66
Views: 9733
Last post by Seventh777
6 years ago
Replies: 0
Views: 2685
Last post by Casinomeister
6 years ago