New Jersey Court Shuts the Door, for Now, on Playtech Joining Evolution’s Defamation Case

Key Points

• The Superior Court of New Jersey denied Evolution’s motion to add Playtech as a defendant in its defamation case against Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP and Black Cube; the ruling was issued without prejudice.
• Evolution claimed Playtech paid roughly $2.4 million to Black Cube to produce a report alleging it ran games in China, Iran, and Sudan illegally; both the New Jersey DGE and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board looked into those claims and chose not to act.
• A November 2026 hearing now stands as the next significant moment, with retired US District Judge Robert B. Kugler named as a special adjudicator at $900 per hour to work through unresolved discovery disputes.

A New Jersey judge has turned down Evolution AB’s push to formally bring rival Playtech into its defamation case. The ruling, though, is procedural. Nothing is settled. Between two of the biggest companies in online gambling, this dispute has plenty of road still ahead.

Judge John C. Porto of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County rejected Evolution’s motion to file a second amended complaint naming Playtech Plc as a defendant. Court documents filed on 5 June show the decision came without prejudice, leaving Evolution free to try again once related proceedings wrap up. For now, Playtech remains outside the courtroom.

Built on False Names and Paid Spies

To get what this ruling actually means, you have to go back to where the whole thing started. In December 2020, Playtech allegedly brought in Israeli private intelligence firm Black Cube to dig into Evolution, its direct rival in the live casino technology market. These were not analysts running searches at a desk. They built fake companies, invented identities, and recorded Evolution staff without their knowledge, presenting themselves as investors scouting Nordic technology ventures.

The report that came out of it, submitted to regulators in November 2021 by New York-based law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, accused Evolution of feeding its games to operators in banned markets, naming China, Iran, and Sudan. Bloomberg ran the allegations the same month. Within days, more than $3 billion was stripped from Evolution’s market value. Evolution sued Calcagni & Kanefsky in December 2021, pointing at the then-unnamed figure who had commissioned the whole operation. Four years passed before that name came out.

Legal documents filed in November 2025 revealed the funding behind the entire affair. The two engagement letters signed by Playtech and Black Cube in December 2020 and June 2022 explained the fee-for-success payment structure, which would see Playtech pay a total of £150,000 for evidence of misconduct, £175,000 if the story got into mainstream media, £350,000 if a regulatory body initiated an investigation, and finally £500,000 if Evolution lost its license. Following the report, Playtech paid £675,000 after meeting the first three conditions. Black Cube’s sole director, Dr Avi Yanus, confirmed Playtech knew exactly what methods were being used throughout.

Regulators Investigated. They Found Nothing

Both the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board opened investigations after the report was filed. Neither body moved against Evolution. The DGE wrapped up its review in February 2024, finding “no evidence … showing that Evolution took illegal bets from New Jersey, another state, or any other prohibited jurisdiction,” and “no evidence of inappropriate payments to Evolution by its clients or that Evolution provided devices for customers to illegally use their content.” The New Jersey Superior Court later called the report “objectively baseless.”

Those findings gave the court the grounds it needed to unseal Playtech’s name. In October 2025, Playtech was identified publicly as the client behind Black Cube for the first time. Within days, its share price fell close to 25%, wiping roughly £300 million in shareholder value. Evolution’s stock barely flinched. When Evolution filed its April 2026 motion to formally name Playtech as a defendant, Playtech shares dropped more than 3% again; a sign that each move in this legal fight still lands hard in the market.

Evolution Swings. Playtech Swings Back

In April 2026, Evolution pushed to expand its suit, pulling in Playtech and raising claims of trade libel, fraud, and racketeering. The amended complaint also named Playtech CEO Mor Weizer for comments made to investors, and sought to draw in PR consultant Juda Engelmayer and his firm HeraldPR, accusing them of arranging for the Black Cube report to reach media outlets.

Evolution’s position was not measured. The company’s statement read: “It continues to be disappointing that a direct competitor would go to such extreme lengths to orchestrate a covert campaign designed to harm our business and avoid competing fairly in the marketplace. We are formally naming Playtech in our lawsuit because the facts are clear: Playtech hired Black Cube to create and publicise a defamatory report designed to harm Evolution, all while misleading the market and lying to investors about its role. For nearly four years, Playtech spent millions of dollars in legal fees to conceal its involvement in this smear campaign and avoid accountability.”

Playtech was equally firm. The company dismissed the claims as “baseless and without merit,” framing its engagement of Black Cube as a legitimate reaction to “credible and repeated concerns” raised by operators, suppliers, and regulators. It turned the accusation around, saying Evolution was using the lawsuit to sidestep scrutiny of its own actions. A Playtech spokesperson said: “The discovery process will provide access to Evolution’s internal documents and require Evolution’s personnel to give sworn testimony under oath which will vindicate Playtech’s position.”

Why Does This Ruling Change Nothing, Not Really?

The court’s decision to keep Playtech out for now connects directly to a motion still in play. Black Cube is pushing to have the entire lawsuit thrown out under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, known as UPEPA, an anti-SLAPP statute that shields defendants from suits aimed at silencing rather than seeking a genuine legal remedy. The court denied both Evolution’s amendment motion and its request for UPEPA relief, but neither refusal was final. If Black Cube’s dismissal effort fails in November, Evolution gets another shot at bringing Playtech in.

Discovery disputes have been piling up, including questions around an internal review Evolution carried out with outside help, referred to in court filings as the Spectrum Report. To work through those disputes, the court has brought in retired US District Judge Robert B. Kugler as a special adjudicator, with both parties sharing the $900 per hour cost. Judge Porto also signed off on Black Cube’s request for transcripts and recordings from its earlier DGE communications, though he rejected requests that went beyond that scope.

What This Case Is Really About?

Two companies throwing money at lawyers is the surface. Beneath it, something more uncomfortable is playing out. Anyone working in regulated gambling, whether as an operator, supplier, affiliate, or marketing team, can read this case as a demonstration of what happens when competitive intelligence is turned into a weapon. Regulatory scrutiny, share price collapse, and years of litigation all landed on Evolution at once, and the regulators found nothing to back the original claims. The damage came first. The facts came later. That sequence is the part worth sitting with.

Playtech has not stood still through any of this. The company recently brought its iPoker network to North America through FanDuel, covering Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ontario. Ben Robinson, managing partner at Corfai Capital, observed in November 2025: “From a share value perspective, both sides appear to have little to gain from letting this escalate.” The November 2026 hearing, with Evolution, Black Cube, and Calcagni & Kanefsky all in the room, will be the first moment that actually tests whether this dispute is moving toward a verdict or searching quietly for another way out.

Expert Analysis

What sets apart this case from any other regular corporate lawsuit is the success fee arrangement right at the heart of the matter. The fact that payment is made according to media exposure, regulatory investigations, and license revocation indicates that there was an intention to achieve results rather than simply gather information. Both US regulators rejected the report’s core claims. A court called it “objectively baseless.” None of that stopped the financial damage from arriving in 2021, fast and severe. The gap between what regulators found and what the market did is the sharpest tension in this whole story. Whether the legal system can account for that gap is what November will start to answer.