Black Cube seeks to end Evolution defamation suit

• Black Cube asks a New Jersey court to dismiss Evolution’s 2021 defamation lawsuit.
• Its case leans on Evolution’s own Spectrum report and £4.75m UKGC settlement.
• The outcome will shape whether Evolution can renew its bid to add Playtech.

Black Cube has asked a New Jersey court to throw out the defamation lawsuit Evolution filed against it in 2021. A hearing is set for November 16, and Black Cube’s argument now rests largely on documents that came from Evolution itself.

A five-year fight

Evolution sued Black Cube for defamation: it says the intelligence firm published false claims that damaged its business. The claims came from a 2021 report. It accused Evolution of offering its games in countries where they should not be available, including China, Iran and Sudan.

In November 2021, law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky sent the report to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. Evolution’s shares fell sharply. The company sued both firms that month.

Both regulators looked into the allegations. New Jersey closed its review in February 2024 without taking action. Pennsylvania closed its own review around the same time.

Black Cube’s request

Black Cube wants the case dismissed under New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. Laws like this one protect people from being sued for speaking out on public issues or reporting concerns to the authorities.

Under the New Jersey law, a defendant can ask the court to end a case early. The judge asks two questions. Does the lawsuit target protected speech? Can the party suing show a real chance of winning? If the answers favor the defendant, the court can dismiss all or part of the case.

Black Cube argues that reporting possible misconduct to gaming regulators is exactly the kind of speech the law protects. It says regulators rely on outsiders to flag problems, and nobody should be sued for doing that.

Evolution’s own documents

Black Cube says recent discoveries back up its 2021 report. Its two main exhibits both came from Evolution.

The first is a 2022 review by Spectrum Gaming Group, which Evolution hired to examine the allegations. Evolution fought to keep the review confidential, citing sensitive commercial information. It became public on September 8 as part of the court case.

The Spectrum report gives both sides something to use. Bloomberg reported that Spectrum found Evolution’s compliance checks ineffective. The checks were meant to spot whether its games could be reached in markets where gambling is illegal.

The Financial Times reported that the review found access in Hong Kong, Singapore, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. That access came through operators further down the supply chain.

Spectrum did not find evidence that Evolution knowingly or deliberately let its games into those markets, Bloomberg reported. Some allegations it could not test at all. Evolution had not handed over requested data on gaming sessions and revenue in Iran, Syria and Sudan.

Playtech paid for Black Cube’s investigation. It says the review confirms key findings. Evolution says Playtech is quoting the review selectively.

The UK settlement

The second exhibit is Evolution’s £4.75m settlement with the UK Gambling Commission in July. The regulator found Evolution games on six websites run by two operators. Those operators served British players without a UK license.

Black Cube raised the settlement in a court filing dated August 3. It argued that Evolution had not been straight with the court about its dealings with regulators. It also asked again for discovery on those dealings. Discovery is the stage of a lawsuit where each side can force the other to hand over documents and evidence.

The same filing pointed to Evolution’s failed purchase of Galaxy Gaming. That deal expired on July 17 with two gaming approvals still outstanding. Evolution paid Galaxy a $5.23m break fee. NEXT.io reported that the Nevada Gaming Control Board never rejected the deal. It simply never came up for a decision.

Evolution says neither event has anything to do with the 2021 report. It has told the court that the UK review covered activity from April 2024 to January 2025, years after Black Cube’s claims. The UK case was about unlicensed operators in a regulated market, not sanctioned countries.

Enter Playtech

For four years, nobody outside the case knew who had hired Black Cube. Black Cube fought to keep its client’s name secret all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and lost.

In October 2025, Playtech was named as the client, and its shares fell by as much as 39% in one trading session. Later filings showed Black Cube’s contracts included success fees, which are bonuses paid if certain outcomes happen. One was a potential £500,000 payment if Evolution lost its gaming license.

Playtech stands by its decision to commission the work and rejects claims of a smear campaign. It says Evolution’s lawsuit is meant to divert attention from the report’s original allegations.

In April, Evolution asked the court to add Playtech as a defendant. It alleged defamation, trade libel, fraud and racketeering. On June 5, Judge John C. Porto of the Superior Court of New Jersey turned the request down without prejudice. That means the door stays open, and Evolution can ask again later.

Sources told NEXT.io the June ruling was procedural. The judge wants Black Cube’s dismissal request settled first.

A wider test

The November hearing will not decide Playtech’s role directly. But if Evolution’s case survives, it can renew its bid to add Playtech. If Black Cube wins, that route narrows or closes.

The case also raises a question legal commentators have been watching since late 2025. If a company hires an investigator to report a rival to regulators, is that protected speech or ordinary commercial activity?

A ruling for Black Cube would make commissioned investigations harder to challenge in court. Any supplier with a motivated competitor has a stake in that answer.

Ruling and appeals

A decision is not expected on the day and could take several weeks. Either side can appeal.

Under New Jersey’s law, if Black Cube loses, it can appeal as of right within 30 days, meaning it does not need the court’s permission. If it wins, it can ask the court to make Evolution pay its legal costs. After five years in court, that bill will not be small.

If the case continues, a trial is still some way off. Retired US District Judge Robert B. Kugler has been appointed to settle disputes over what evidence each side must hand over. There have been plenty of them.

For Evolution, staying in court means more scrutiny of how its games reach players through operators. For Playtech, it raises the prospect of having to defend the Black Cube work itself.