Evolution formally names Playtech in US defamation suit
Table of contents
- Evolution has filed a motion with the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking permission to add Playtech as a defendant in its ongoing defamation case.
- The amended complaint accuses Playtech of defamation, trade libel, fraud, and racketeering over a campaign linked to a 2021 Black Cube report submitted to US gaming regulators.
- Playtech has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and without merit” and says it will defend itself vigorously.
Evolution AB has escalated its long-running US legal dispute by filing a motion with the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking permission to add Playtech as a defendant in its defamation case.
The amended complaint names Playtech alongside existing defendants Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, Black Cube, and PR consultant Juda Engelmayer, accusing the group of orchestrating a coordinated campaign to damage Evolution’s standing in the North American market.
How the campaign unfolded
In December 2020, Playtech hired Black Cube to produce a report about Evolution accusing it of regulatory violations, designed to harm its business and destroy its reputation. High-level Playtech executives, including CEO Mor Weizer, communicated with Black Cube regarding the investigation and report.
Throughout 2021, Black Cube conducted an investigation involving secretly recorded conversations and interviews using false personas and disguises with at least five current or former Evolution employees and board members.
Black Cube edited video and audio clips, cherry-picked portions of these interactions, and withheld evidence that disproved its conclusions.
In November 2021, Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP submitted the Black Cube report to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (NJDGE) and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB), requesting that the NJDGE revoke Evolution’s license.
The report was also leaked to media outlets by Juda Engelmayer and his firm HeraldPR, in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars.
The NJDGE and PGCB closed their investigations in February 2024 without taking corrective action. The NJDGE stated it found “no evidence showing that Evolution took illegal bets from New Jersey, another state, or any other prohibited jurisdiction.”
In September 2025, the New Jersey Superior Court went further, describing the Black Cube report as “objectively baseless” and finding that “no reasonable litigant could expect success on the merits.”
Fraud and racketeering claims
Evolution’s amended filing accuses Playtech of defamation, trade libel, fraud, and racketeering. The filing also accuses Playtech of withholding information about its conduct from shareholders, despite CEO Mor Weizer’s active participation in the preparation and dissemination of the defamatory report.
During Playtech’s Q2 2025 earnings call, Weizer stated “It’s not a question for us” when asked about Playtech’s involvement, despite his personal role in commissioning the report.
On the financial structure of the arrangement, Evolution pointed to a success-fee scheme as evidence of intent. Evolution cited approximately £1.5 million in success fees Playtech promised Black Cube contingent on the investigation yielding its desired results. This figure relates specifically to the contingent payments outlined in the engagement letters.
Court filings from November 2025 separately established that Playtech’s total payments to Black Cube exceeded £1.8 million, including fixed fees, success payments earned, and ongoing legal indemnification costs.
Evolution AB’s press statement from yesterday April 9, 2026, reads:
“We are formally naming Playtech in our lawsuit because the facts are clear: Playtech hired Black Cube to create and publicize 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 hits back
Playtech dismissed Evolution’s motion as “baseless and without merit,” noting it had been anticipating the formal step since Evolution’s public statement on October 21, 2025. The company stands by the decision to commission the report and its findings, and welcomed the opportunity to participate in discovery proceedings.
Playtech countered with its own accusations, suggesting Evolution aims to avoid legitimate scrutiny regarding allegations of supplying operators in illegal and sanctioned markets and supporting unlicensed operators in regulated jurisdictions.
Playtech’s regulatory announcement from April 9, 2026 reads:
“Playtech welcomes court and regulatory examination of the report and its findings and, importantly, the opportunity to be involved in the discovery process including to question Evolution’s employees, executives and officers in court.”
“The company is very confident based on evidence it has, including recent additional evidence, that these proceedings will confirm the credibility and legitimacy of the report and the importance of the issues it seeks to address.”
“Playtech will defend itself vigorously against Evolution’s claims and will continue to act in the best interests of industry operators, suppliers and regulators as well as its shareholders.”
Market and competitive backdrop
The dispute plays out against intensifying competition between the two suppliers in the US market. Despite the ongoing litigation, Playtech reported a 71% increase in US and Canada revenue in 2025, driven by partnerships with DraftKings, FanDuel, Hard Rock, and Delaware North.
The market impact of earlier disclosures was significant. When Playtech was first identified as Black Cube’s client in October 2025, its share price plummeted between 25% and 38%, while Evolution’s shares held steady or edged higher.
On April 9, 2026, Playtech shares declined more than 3% following Evolution’s announcement of the amended filing.
The Superior Court of New Jersey must now decide whether to grant Evolution’s motion. If it does, the case will move into full discovery, requiring both companies to disclose internal documents and testimony.
For operators and investors with exposure to both suppliers, the outcome carries implications for licensing credibility, compliance positioning, and competitive standing across regulated US states.
Keep reading
Do you have a story worth sharing?
Send it over to our editors!
