The current discussion is revolving around the question of how closely tied Cassava is to each of it's software "users", mainly the white labels.
They are currently claiming, and not without some precedent -- look at pretty much every other software provider, though there are notable exceptions -- that they just sold the software to some of these guys but have no involvement in their day to day operations and are therefore not responsible for their activities. On the surface this sounds reasonable enough and one could argue for Accreditation of those of their casinos that operate on the up-and-up and are seeking Accreditation, so far that being 888 and Reef Club.
On the other hand there's the fact that every bit of communication from those other, "hide in the shadows" Cassava-using casinos comes with Cassava's name stamped all over it. In that case it's starting to look more like a Rival situation and a fair argument could be made against Accreditation of any of them.
I believe Bryan is mulling over these very issues given the "Baptism by Fire" status of 888 and Reef Club.
If this claim is true, how come we have this "one account only across the entire Cassava operated white label casinos".
Players are repeatedly having winnings confiscated because they had already created an account earlier at a completely different white label casino, and are told to "not open an account at any Cassava property, else even your DEPOSIT will be confiscated". From this, it is clear that ALL Cassava casinos are running as "sister casinos", and information is pooled centrally, and shared between all, even those they supposedly "just sold the software to".
Now, if they "just sold the software to" a particular white label, there is NO WAY they should also be passing on our personal information to such a white label. It is as acceptable as, say, 32Red passing it's players' personal details to Jackpot Factory, to detect whether players have accounts with BOTH groups, with a view to enforcing a "one account across all Microgamng properties" policy.
If these Cassava white labels were truly independent, they would NOT be cooperating to the extent that they would REFUSE a player on the grounds that they had already signed up at a competitor. Far from it, they would be making every effort to POACH such a player from the competitor.
I think we have the same situation as with Rival, a central Cassava "player ratings" database, and with the white labels pretty much run by Cassava, and a structure that does NOT want players spreading their play between a number of white label casinos, which is pretty much what Rival seems to object to, since I have noticed that every player that has been "bonus banned" at Rival has "opened accounts at many Rival powered casinos".
On top of this, we have the complaint that as soon as a player signs up at ONE Cassava property, they get inundated with what the rep called "cross marketing" emails encouraging them to sign up at a number of other white labels. This would NOT happen where the casinos were truly COMPETING with each other. In my example, it would be like 32Red "cross marketing" All Slots and All Jackpots casino to it's players, as well as Dash, Nedplay, and Golden Lounge. They would NOT, since Jackpot Factory are their COMPETITOR, and they would SUFFER were their players to move their action to anywhere other than one of the other 32Red Group properties.
