It was for sure at websites like beerlawoffice.com and sullivaninc.net. I've seen evidence at GPWA.The websites seem to be cleaned up.
I did have a look at Google news, there I found now some websites. With the usual suspects, but also with Bethard and Casino Room. Example is ironbladeonline.com/?ozwtt=1744359640 that links to shop.insurancecosts.top/search.html?key=casino#fb and that links to casinointorus.com. I will post it when I find websites where worldwidebestcasinos.com appears.
Yes, it was a very good catch. It's difficult to see who's really behind a white label, while it's important information. People think iGaming Cloud, Maltese license, that should be fine. But it isn't always. The Aspire Global research you did shows the same thing. Not every individual owner is trustable.
Even before that, they were struggling to pay some affiliates. I must say the guy I know is a smaller affiliate. He was told something that he should understand they were just beginning, etc. I am not a fan of casinos that are not able to pay winners. If you let people play with € 150 / spin or in the live casino with x.xxx or xx.xxx, they can also win big amounts. Some games perhaps even give the chance to win xxx.xxx with a lower stake. Perhaps I sound very non-commercial, but if you're not able to pay the prize, then you should not allow players to put that kind of stakes.
Yes, I think many casinos will face problems if somebody wins big. Everybody with a bit of money can start up a white label nowadays. I don't think that's good. They compete each other just with affiliate commissions that aren't sustainable or with bonuses full of tricky and vague terms, that are sometimes even interpreted in a very liberal way. They do not compete with products. It's white label, so 25 of them basically are having the same product with just another logo.