New Jersey Court Rejects Evolution Bid to Add Playtech to Case

New Jersey Court Rejects Evolution Bid to Add Playtech to Defamation Case – Legal Dispute Over Black Cube Report Continues

Key Takeaways

• The Superior Court of New Jersey denied Evolution’s request to add Playtech as a defendant in its defamation lawsuit.
• The case centers on a report by private intelligence firm Black Cube alleging illegal operations by Evolution.
• Regulators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania reviewed the report but took no enforcement action against Evolution.
• Evolution’s additional claims for trade libel, fraud, racketeering and anti SLAPP relief were rejected.
• A hearing involving Black Cube and Calcagni & Kanefsky is scheduled for November 2026.

New Jersey Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint

The Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County has rejected Evolution AB’s request to expand its ongoing defamation lawsuit in the United States. In court documents filed on 5 June, the Stockholm listed gambling technology supplier sought permission to amend its complaint to add London listed competitor Playtech as a defendant.

The court denied that motion. As a result, Playtech will not be added to the current proceedings, which were originally brought by Evolution against US law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP.

Evolution had attempted to bring additional claims against Playtech, including trade libel, fraud and racketeering. The company also sought to add public relations consultant Juda Engelmayer and other individuals to the case. Those requests were not approved.

Origins of the Dispute: Black Cube Investigation

The legal conflict stems from a report prepared by private intelligence firm Black Cube. The report, which became public last October, alleged that Evolution was operating illegally in several jurisdictions by supplying gaming titles to companies active in markets where gambling is either illegal or exists in a legal grey area.

According to Evolution, Playtech hired Black Cube in December 2020 and paid approximately 1.8 million pounds for the investigation. Evolution claims the report was commissioned to damage a competitor in the online casino market and that its contents were false.

Playtech has maintained that commissioning the investigation was lawful and appropriate. At the time the report became public, a spokesperson for Playtech stated that court examination and the discovery process would provide access to Evolution’s internal documents and sworn testimony from its personnel, which Playtech said would vindicate its position.

Regulatory Review in New Jersey and Pennsylvania

Calcagni & Kanefsky subsequently submitted the Black Cube report to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement. This submission prompted investigations by both the New Jersey regulator and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.

Despite the allegations outlined in the report, neither regulator ultimately took enforcement action against Evolution. The absence of regulatory penalties forms part of the broader background to the ongoing court dispute.

For operators and suppliers active in regulated US markets, such regulatory reviews are significant. Investigations by state gaming authorities can affect licensing status, supplier relationships and market access. In this case, however, the regulators concluded their reviews without public enforcement measures against Evolution.

Court Also Rejects Anti SLAPP Protection Request

In addition to seeking to add Playtech as a defendant, Evolution requested relief under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. The Act functions as an anti SLAPP law, designed to protect against lawsuits that aim to suppress free speech.

The court denied this request as well. This means the case will proceed without the additional procedural protections Evolution sought under the Act.

The remaining dispute will continue to focus on claims related to the allegedly defamatory report and the roles of Black Cube and Calcagni & Kanefsky.

Market Reaction and Share Price Movements

When the Black Cube report was revealed last year, Playtech’s shares fell sharply. The stock dropped from 336 pence to 266 pence in a single day following publication of the allegations.

Since then, Playtech’s share price has partially recovered. As of the latest update, it is trading at around 322 pence. Playtech has described the litigation as a contingent liability in its public communications.

For publicly listed gambling technology providers, legal disputes of this scale can influence investor sentiment and short term price volatility, particularly when they involve allegations of regulatory non compliance in key markets.

Next Steps: November 2026 Hearing

With the motion to amend the complaint denied, the case will move forward without Playtech as a defendant. A hearing involving Black Cube and Calcagni & Kanefsky is scheduled for November 2026.

At that stage, the parties will continue to contest claims surrounding the report and its alleged defamatory content. The hearing is expected to address the central legal questions that have defined this dispute since the report first emerged.

Our Assessment

The New Jersey court’s decision narrows the scope of Evolution’s US defamation lawsuit by excluding Playtech and rejecting additional claims and anti SLAPP relief. Regulatory authorities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania reviewed the allegations in the Black Cube report but did not take enforcement action against Evolution. The case will proceed toward a November 2026 hearing focused on the roles of Black Cube and Calcagni & Kanefsky in the publication and handling of the disputed report.