This is the exception, not the rule.
Some time ago, Joyland Casino walked off with over 2 million dollars (Canadian) from a Playtech progressive payout. Another Playtech casino stole the ENTIRE amount of a network progressive payout. When Joyland was taken over by William Hill, they were pressured into investigating what the former owners had done with the money, but they could find nothing. It was stolen, then hidden from the accounts.
Both casinos had something in common. They were white label solutions from Paragon International Customer Care based in the Philippines. This company itself turns out to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Playtech itself, a company listed in London (although at the time Paragon was still being run by one of the original founders and owners of Playtech, but with Playtech having options to buy up Paragon at a later date, which they did).
One would think this arrangement would guarantee players funds, but it didn't.
Rival have a similar white label structure, yet their skins continually go bust, often in a devious manner that leaves players having to guess what is going on.
In both these arrangements, when pressed, both Playtech and Rival claim they don't have the money, and refer players to the owners of the skins, who of course have vanished. Rival did once say that they would take care of players when skins went under, but in practice this has turned out to mean very little.
Now we have Betport, a skin vanishing from a white label network and taking players' money with them.
Now of course, your company has an LGA license, so this guarantees that players' funds are safe as this is a requirement for having one of their licenses. Players of your skins won't be going Purple with frustration when one of your skins goes under will they
You can see that players do NOT trust the white label system any more than they trust many of these offshore regulators. What players want are solid operators that can stand up to the pressure on their own. White labels are seen as grossly underfunded operators who have to rely on being propped up by a white label solutions provider in order to prevent them from collapsing in the first week. Many of these solutions providers don't give a damn about the players, caring only for the revenue stream they can get from the skins.
Indeed, in a poker skin case, a dispute between the network provider and one of it's skins was resolved by the network putting the skin out of business, and it confiscating funds to cover it's own view of the contract agreement at the expense of players because it ended up leaving too little remaining to refund players' balances as the skin shut down. The PLAYERS should have been looked after first, and if the provider lost money, that was their fault for not spotting that they were getting shafted by the skin earlier.
One this IS now quite clear. Since your company controls the bank accounts that hold players' funds, it is your company that is responsible for players' balances should a skin go bust, and we won't forget that.