There is a fair bit of lying going on here. A few operators say they would LIKE to pay faster, but are shackled by RIVAL, yet Rival say this is not so, it is the OPERATORS that are stalling, and that once the operator releases payment, Rival will process it without delay. Further, Tradition can pay in 48 hours, yet is a "white label" using the services of the Rival processor. Clearly, ANY of the white labels COULD start paying in 48 hours RIGHT NOW. It seems they have figured out that the best tactic is to blame Rival for the delays, because Rival don't have reps to defend themselves, nor do they usually make statements on such matters. In this respect, Rival have become the victim of their own "hands off" "we are the software provider only" policy, which has allowed operators to blame Rival for problems that are REALLY down to whatever protocols they have instructed Rival to use with their brands.
Naturally, if this is REALLY how the structure is set up, the central player database is even MORE ILLEGAL than I thought, as it is sharing player information between different operators that may REALLY be completely unrelated to each other, in other words, "third parties". To make it LEGAL, players would have to be able to OPT OUT of being placed on the central database, and it should be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the default is "opted in". Neither of these is the case with Rival casinos. The ONLY circumstance where data may be shared without consent is "by order of a law enforcement agency, or a court of law" this would ONLY ever apply where fraud was suspected, and data could NOT be passed around, nor ratings be generated from pooled data, simply based on normal activity, such as opening accounts, depositing, playing with bonuses etc.
Perhaps this could be tested, how about a Rival player requesting that none of their information is shared out to "third parties". Personal data is defined as ANY data that can be used to identify someone, and is not necessarily their name and address. IF a third party Rival casino has been able to identify one of their players as a big winner at a different Rival casino, and bonus bans them, they have had access to personal information from a third party (the other casino), OR the casinos are part of the same group, having NO independence from each other.
Individual statements do seem plausible, but when combined, it doesn't really make sense.