Evolution formally requests the inclusion of Playtech in defamation case in New Jersey

Evolution presented a formal petition for Playtech to be added "as soon as practical" to the defamation litigation it holds in New Jersey, according to a letter filed in the record and shared with iGaming Expert. The original lawsuit against the law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP and the Israeli investigation firm Black Cube dates back to accusations arising from an investigation commissioned by a subsidiary of Playtech, and Evolution now requests that the software manufacturer enter the lawsuit due to the release of the Spectrum Report and public statements from Playtech.

What Evolution is requesting and why it wants to include Playtech

Evolution claims that the publication of the Spectrum Report and Playtech’s subsequent communication, in which the company stated that the report validated its assertions about Evolution’s activities in prohibited jurisdictions, have resulted in "false and misleading headlines." In the letter submitted to the court, Evolution stated that media coverage—citing, among others, Bloomberg and the Financial Times—was based on a statement from Black Cube that labeled Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia as prohibited jurisdictions.

Evolution points out that this interpretation differs from the position of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement when the initial complaint against Evolution was filed in 2021. The gaming provider commissioned the Spectrum Report to review its labor practices after the investigation by Black Cube, contracted by a subsidiary of Playtech, accused Evolution of supplying to prohibited countries, including some subject to U.S. sanctions.

Discrepancies in the content of the Spectrum Report

Playtech publicly claimed that the Spectrum Report corroborated the accusations against Evolution. Evolution responded that Playtech had selectively quoted parts of the report and highlighted that the investigators had explicitly concluded:

"Spectrum does not believe that Evolution has engaged in any illegal practices." — statement in the Spectrum Report, cited by Evolution in its court filing

Evolution maintains that the combination of the report’s publication and Playtech’s communication led to erroneous interpretations in the press, which in turn have harmed the company’s reputation.

Procedural history in New Jersey and the previous failed motion

The petition to add Playtech is not the first attempt by Evolution. The Superior Court of New Jersey previously rejected the motion to add Playtech to the record before a scheduled hearing in November regarding the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), the state version of the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. Black Cube had sought partial dismissal under UPEPA, and the hearing seeks to determine whether the claims can proceed under this statute.

Evolution has made it clear in its filing that it does not intend to delay the UPEPA hearing. The company seeks an immediate resolution after the November hearing, rather than postponing the process while issues regarding Playtech's inclusion are settled.

Business implications and timeline of the litigation

Evolution executives expect the litigation to extend throughout 2026. The dispute mixes reputational claims with complex procedural strategies: the media amplification of content from a private investigation, the liability of the firm that commissioned it, and the chain of subsidiaries that managed the hiring.

For operators and providers in the sector, the case illustrates how private inquiries and their public dissemination can trigger cross-border legal actions. Differences in the interpretation of what constitutes a "prohibited" jurisdiction and the role of regulatory authorities, such as the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, remain at the heart of the conflict.

Entities named in the record

Formal names appear in the court documentation: Evolution (plaintiff), Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP (defendant), Black Cube (investigator hired by a subsidiary of Playtech), and Playtech (entity that, according to Evolution, commissioned the research through a subsidiary). The media outlets cited by Evolution in its filing include Bloomberg and the Financial Times, whose handling of Black Cube’s statements is among the reasons for seeking Playtech’s inclusion.

What follows in the legal schedule

• UPEPA hearing in November at the Superior Court of New Jersey.

• Evolution has requested that, following that hearing, the court issue a determination on Playtech’s inclusion as soon as possible.

• The parties anticipate that the litigation will continue throughout 2026.

What operators and providers should watch for

The dispute underscores two key areas for companies in the sector: the management of external investigations and the control of the public narrative following the publication of reports. It also highlights the interaction between media determinations and regulatory actions, particularly when an authority, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, expressed a differing position in 2021 regarding the characterization of certain jurisdictions.

Evolution has maintained its intention not to halt the UPEPA phase and seeks a swift decision on Playtech's incorporation, suggesting that the legal battle will enter a new procedural phase following the November hearing.

"as soon as practical" — Evolution’s request to add Playtech to the case, expressed in the letter submitted to the court

The press continues to follow the evolution of the lawsuit; the ruling on UPEPA and the court's decision regarding including Playtech will mark the next milestones in the case.