Playtech Could Join Evolution Defamation Lawsuit

Playtech could become a defendant in Evolution’s high-profile defamation lawsuit in New Jersey if the case survives an upcoming legal challenge brought by private intelligence firm Black Cube.

The dispute centres on a 2021 report commissioned by Playtech and prepared by Black Cube, which accused Evolution of supplying online casino services in prohibited markets, including Iran.

The allegations contributed to a significant decline in Evolution’s share price at the time, prompting the live casino supplier to pursue legal action in New Jersey.

Black Cube is now seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed under the state’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), an anti-SLAPP law designed to protect against lawsuits intended to discourage legitimate public participation.

A hearing is scheduled for November 16, with a decision expected several weeks later.

The outcome could determine whether the case proceeds towards trial and whether Evolution can renew its efforts to add Playtech as a defendant.

Black Cube Seeks Dismissal Under New Jersey’s Anti-SLAPP Law

Black Cube’s latest legal challenge relies on UPEPA, which provides protections against certain lawsuits brought to discourage or penalise protected expression and public participation.

The legislation allows defendants to seek dismissal of qualifying claims before a case reaches trial.

However, legal observers believe Black Cube faces a substantial challenge in securing a complete dismissal at this stage.

Evolution’s lawsuit has already survived an earlier motion to dismiss, while the company has also secured favourable rulings from New Jersey’s Supreme Court.

Analysts Ivor Jones and Douglas Jack of Peel Hunt explained that the upcoming hearing will focus on whether UPEPA provides grounds to dismiss the case rather than determining whether Evolution’s underlying allegations are valid.

“The judge will not be assessing the merits of Evolution’s defamation case in the UPEPA hearing. Rather, they will be assessing whether there is a basis under UPEPA to dismiss the defamation case even before trial,” the analysts wrote.

They added that a decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed should not be interpreted as evidence that Evolution is more likely to win its defamation claims.

“If the judge decides that UPEPA does not prevent the case from proceeding, this would not, in our view, provide new information about the probability of the eventual success or failure of Evolution’s defamation case.”

November 16 Hearing Could Lead to Further Appeals

The hearing will be overseen by Judge John C. Porto, who will consider whether Black Cube’s application meets the requirements for dismissal under UPEPA.

The judge could reject the motion, grant it in full or potentially dismiss certain claims while allowing others to continue.

A ruling is not expected immediately following the November 16 hearing, with analysts anticipating that a decision could take several weeks.

Sources familiar with the proceedings also expect the unsuccessful party to consider an appeal.

The case involves relatively new legal questions surrounding UPEPA, which was introduced in New Jersey approximately three years ago.

These issues could eventually bring the dispute before the New Jersey Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming hearing.

The possibility of further appeals means the legal proceedings could continue even after the court resolves Black Cube’s current application.

Playtech Could Be Added as Defendant if Evolution’s Case Continues

One of the most significant potential consequences of the UPEPA hearing concerns Playtech’s involvement in the lawsuit.

Although Playtech commissioned Black Cube’s original investigation, it is not currently a defendant in Evolution’s defamation proceedings.

Evolution previously attempted to add Playtech through an amended complaint in April.

However, the judge declined to consider the addition until the UPEPA stage of the proceedings had concluded.

If Evolution’s lawsuit survives Black Cube’s dismissal attempt, the company could submit a fresh motion seeking to include Playtech as a defendant.

Such a development would potentially expand the scope of the litigation and bring the two competing gambling technology suppliers into a more direct legal confrontation.

Playtech’s possible inclusion has attracted considerable attention because of its role in commissioning the investigation that led to the original allegations against Evolution.

Spectrum Gaming Review Remains Central to Dispute

The upcoming hearing represents one of the most significant developments in the case since Playtech obtained and publicly released an internal review conducted by Spectrum Gaming.

Evolution had commissioned the review to examine the allegations raised in Black Cube’s original report.

Following its release, Playtech argued that the findings supported “fundamental aspects of Black Cube’s investigation.”

Evolution disputed that interpretation, maintaining that the review did not substantiate the most serious allegations underlying the defamation case.

The disagreement highlights the continuing dispute over the accuracy and significance of the original claims concerning Evolution’s activities in prohibited gambling markets.

The November 16 hearing will not determine which company’s interpretation is correct.

Instead, the court will decide whether the lawsuit can continue under New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP legislation.

Potential Trial Could Require Disclosure of Sensitive Business Information

Peel Hunt analysts have warned that allowing the case to proceed could create additional risks for Evolution and potentially its commercial partners.

If the lawsuit moves towards trial, the discovery process could require the disclosure of internal documents and other information relating to Evolution’s operations.

Company representatives and potentially other relevant parties could also face questioning under oath about commercially sensitive aspects of the business.

The analysts suggested that the prospect of extensive disclosure could increase uncertainty for both Evolution and Playtech, particularly if the litigation continues for an extended period.

“The litigation creates uncertainty, which is unlikely to be welcomed by the shareholders of both Evolution and Playtech,” Jones and Jack wrote.

They also warned that a failed UPEPA challenge could leave the dispute unresolved well into the future.

“If Black Cube’s UPEPA case fails, then the defamation case could continue through 2027 and potentially beyond, depending on the depth of discovery, which is likely to shed further information on Evolution’s business practices.”

Evolution and Playtech Await Next Stage of Legal Proceedings

The November 16 hearing represents an important procedural milestone in a dispute that began with allegations concerning Evolution’s operations in restricted gambling markets in 2021.

Although Black Cube is seeking dismissal under UPEPA, the outcome will not establish whether Evolution’s defamation claims are ultimately justified.

A decision allowing the lawsuit to continue could reopen the possibility of Playtech being added as a defendant, while further appeals could delay the proceedings.

For both companies, the case presents ongoing legal and commercial uncertainty, particularly given the potential for extensive disclosure if the dispute reaches trial.

The immediate focus remains on Judge Porto’s decision and whether New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP protections provide sufficient grounds to halt Evolution’s lawsuit before it progresses further.