Evolution faces Black Cube counterclaims over transparency

In four years, the dispute between Evolution AB and Playtech, its London-listed competitor, has moved from allegations about market conduct into a broader contest over access to information and disclosure.  

What began in 2021 with an investigative report has become a detailed legal process in the New Jersey courts, now focused less on the original claims and more on discovery, document production, and narrative control. 

Both sides’ latest motions, which have passed through the court this month, do not resolve the central question that first drew investor attention. 

Instead, the filings illustrate the procedural complexity of the litigation and the stakes involved for all parties. And so the saga rolls on, the latest development being a court hearing on 12 December related to Evolution’s defamation litigation against Black Cube and its legal representatives, the law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky.  

The hearing related to Evolution’s motion to enforce the court’s 9 September discovery order and request for sanctions against Black Cube for its alleged deficient discovery responses and ongoing defiance of the court’s order.   

From allegations to litigation 

The dispute traces back to 2021, when investigative firm Black Cube published a report alleging that Evolution’s live-casino products could be accessed in some restricted markets. Evolution rejected the report as inaccurate and defamatory, asserting that its systems were compliant.  

Court filings have indicated that Playtech, through an entity called Veridicians, funded Black Cube’s work – a point now central to Evolution’s claims. 

Regulators, including the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE), reviewed the allegations and Evolution’s compliance measures. By 2023 and 2024, senior Evolution executives testified before the DGE. No enforcement action followed. 

Despite the lack of regulatory sanctions, the matter continued in court, with Evolution pursuing defamation claims against Black Cube and related parties. The current litigation centres on procedural and discovery disputes arising from that decision. 

Discovery as battleground 

The immediate issue before the New Jersey Superior Court is pretrial disclosure, the court-supervised process by which parties must share information with each other before a case is decided. This is enforced so that neither side is surprised by evidence, and the issues can be fairly resolved.  

On 9 September the court ordered Black Cube to disclose detailed information regarding its investigation of Evolution, including payments, invoices and the identities of personnel involved. 

In motions filed on 5 November and 17 November, Evolution alleged that Black Cube withheld post-2021 payment information. This was despite deposition testimony suggesting that Playtech continued to pay Black Cube for Evolution-related work after the original report. Evolution also contends that Black Cube has not identified employees or contractors involved in the investigation and has obstructed the continuation of founder Avi Yanus’ deposition. 

Evolution’s filings characterise these omissions as deliberate. The company argues that the undisclosed payments relate to ongoing investigative activity relevant to whether Black Cube’s conduct was commercial – a factor affecting New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), which can provide early dismissal protections for speech on matters of public concern. 

Black Cube disputes this interpretation, arguing that Evolution waived certain discovery rights by proceeding under the court’s schedule and that additional discovery is unnecessary for the pending UPEPA motions. The court has not yet ruled on these questions. 

Turning the lens on Evolution 

In recent court filings Black Cube also accused Evolution of failing to comply with a 2 December court order to produce documents relating to inquiries by the DGE and Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. These materials included reports cited in regulatory correspondence, submissions provided to regulators and communications with regulators. 

According to Black Cube, Evolution has not produced these materials, instead seeking a broad protective order to keep them confidential. Black Cube contends that this is inconsistent with Evolution’s prior public litigation strategy, which included citing discovery material and commenting on investigative findings. 

Evolution responded by insisting the documents contained sensitive, non-public business information and that protective measures were necessary to prevent competitive harm. The company also noted that it had cooperated extensively with regulators and addressed any compliance issues identified. The court has not yet ruled on these competing positions either. 

The regulator in the middle 

Regulatory scrutiny remains a central element of the dispute. Black Cube has emphasised that the DGE conducted a detailed review, including sworn testimony from senior executives in Stockholm, Sweden, offering this as evidence that the original allegations against Evolution warranted examination. Parties disagree on the significance of this. 

Evolution AB and its counsel have repeatedly emphasised the lack of subsequent regulatory enforcement and this outcome is cited as evidence that the Black Cube report was false or baseless.

Black Cube and its counsel argue instead that Evolution’s lack of transparency indicates credible concern. In the 9 December memorandum, Black Cube argued that the DGE travelled to Stockholm, Sweden where they conducted sworn interviews with Evolution CEO Martin Carlesund, then-CFO Jacob Kaplan, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer Julia Simonsson and other senior executives. 

This kind of scrutiny, argued Black Cube, does not correspond with Evolution’s claim that the Black Cube report was “objectively baseless”. 

The litigation continues to raise questions without resolution: Does the absence of penalties imply the allegations were unfounded? Or does the extent of the investigation suggest the concerns were serious enough to merit scrutiny?  

A contest of credibility between Evolution and Black Cube

The filings illustrate a contest over credibility rather than a straightforward path to judgment. Evolution seeks to demonstrate that Black Cube’s investigation was commercially motivated, financed by a competitor and extended long after the initial report.  

Black Cube, meanwhile, has portrayed Evolution as selectively transparent, promoting favourable regulatory outcomes and resisting disclosure of inconvenient materials. 

Both sides accuse the other of delay, inconsistency and strategic secrecy. Evolution alleges a pattern of insufficient transparency to protect Playtech, while Black Cube accuses Evolution of using confidentiality to control public perception. 

These disputes will influence what information becomes public and shape narratives before any judgment on the merits. 

What comes next in the dispute?

The court must decide whether Black Cube has complied with the 9 September order, and whether Evolution is entitled to a protective order over regulatory documents. They must also assess whether either party should face sanctions for non-compliance. These rulings will determine the scope of information accessible to each side. 

The broader unresolved question is how much weight to assign to an investigative report that prompted regulatory scrutiny but no enforcement action, and how the funding and continuation of the investigation might affect its legal protection. 

Until these issues are addressed, the Evolution-Playtech-Black Cube litigation remains a struggle to control the record on which future legal and commercial judgments will be made.