The legal battle involving Evolution AB, Playtech, and investigative firm Black Cube has entered a phase defined less by allegations and more by disputes over what information each side must reveal. Recent filings in New Jersey court show a case increasingly shaped by procedural maneuvering, as both parties challenge how evidence is produced, protected, or withheld.
The conflict originated in 2021 after Black Cube released an investigative report alleging that Evolution’s live casino products were accessible in restricted markets. Evolution denied the claims and described the report as defamatory, asserting that its systems complied with applicable rules. Regulatory authorities, including the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, examined the allegations. Senior executives later provided sworn testimony in 2023 and 2024, and the reviews concluded without enforcement action.
Despite that outcome, the dispute moved into litigation, with Evolution filing defamation claims against Black Cube and related parties. Court documents later indicated that Playtech, through an entity known as Veridicians, funded Black Cube’s work, a relationship that now sits at the center of ongoing discovery disputes.
Discovery Becomes the Primary Battlefield
The current stage of proceedings focuses on discovery, the pretrial exchange of information intended to prevent surprises and clarify disputed facts. On 9 September, the New Jersey Superior Court ordered Black Cube to provide detailed records tied to its investigation, including invoices, payment data, and the identities of individuals involved.
Evolution later filed motions arguing that Black Cube failed to comply fully with that order. According to Evolution, deposition testimony suggested that work related to the investigation continued beyond the original 2021 report and that payments followed. Evolution also claimed that Black Cube did not identify staff connected to the investigation and interfered with further deposition of founder Avi Yanus.
These points carry legal weight because Evolution argues the missing information relates to whether Black Cube’s actions were commercial in nature, a factor relevant to protections under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. Black Cube rejects this view, stating that Evolution accepted the court’s discovery framework and that additional disclosures are unnecessary for the pending motions. The court has not ruled on these issues.
Scrutiny Turns Back on Evolution
Black Cube has responded with its own allegations, asserting that Evolution failed to comply with a separate court order issued on 2 December. That order required production of documents connected to inquiries by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, including reports cited in regulatory correspondence and communications with regulators.
Black Cube claims Evolution has withheld these materials while seeking a broad protective order to keep them confidential. Evolution countered that the documents contain sensitive, non-public business information and that disclosure without safeguards could cause competitive harm. Evolution also maintained that it cooperated fully with regulators throughout their reviews.
A Case Defined by Process
Regulatory scrutiny remains a point of contention. Black Cube emphasizes the depth of the DGE’s review, including sworn interviews conducted in Stockholm with senior executives, as evidence the allegations warranted serious examination. Evolution points to the absence of penalties as proof the report lacked merit.
Source:
“Saga continues: Evolution faces Black Cube counterclaims over transparency”, igamingbusiness.com, December 24, 2025
The post Court Filings Shift Spotlight to Information Control in Evolution Case first appeared on RealMoneyAction.com.