Report flags Evolution access in prohibited Asian markets

• A Spectrum Gaming Group review commissioned by Evolution found its games were accessible in prohibited markets including Hong Kong, Singapore, the UAE and Saudi Arabia through downstream operators.
• Playtech says the review corroborates several findings from the Black Cube investigation it commissioned in 2020, and has stood by that decision despite a share-price collapse when its role was revealed.
• Evolution denies wrongdoing and notes regulators closed their own reviews in 2024 without action, as the underlying defamation litigation continues in New Jersey.

A compliance review commissioned by Evolution AB found the live casino supplier’s games were accessible in prohibited markets, including Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, through downstream operators, according to the Financial Times.

The Spectrum Gaming Group review, dated 2022, became public on 8 September 2026 after Black Cube filed it in full in New Jersey court as part of its own litigation with Evolution. Playtech plc, which commissioned the original Black Cube investigation into Evolution, said in an RNS filing that the review corroborates several of its key findings.

Origins in New Jersey

The dispute traces back to November 2021, when an anonymous report reached the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement alleging that Evolution’s games were reachable from countries under US sanctions, including Iran, Syria and Sudan, in some cases through the use of virtual private networks. Evolution commissioned Spectrum Gaming Group to examine the claims.

That commission produced the review at the centre of today’s disclosure. It sat unseen for years, cited by regulators but never released to the public, until Black Cube’s latest New Jersey court filing forced it into the open.

Ineffective compliance

According to Bloomberg, the review found Evolution’s compliance procedures were “ineffective” for checking whether its casino games were accessible in markets where gambling is illegal. Evolution had a “complete absence of any ongoing examination” to ensure the casino operators using its products were blocking players in restricted markets, the review found.

That gap, rather than any single incident, sits at the heart of the finding. Spectrum concluded the missing oversight created the conditions for unauthorised access to occur, regardless of intent.

Reaching restricted markets

The Financial Times reported that the review specifically identified access in Hong Kong, Singapore, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, reaching those markets through downstream operators rather than any direct relationship between Evolution and players there.

Evolution allegedly received revenue from operators offering its content in these markets, and that it had not taken remedial action, such as blocking the sites involved or enforcing its own contract terms, after the allegations first became public.

Despite those findings, Spectrum did not identify evidence that Evolution knowingly or deliberately allowed its games into prohibited markets, Bloomberg reported. Its conclusion centred on the absence of proactive monitoring, which it said raised Evolution’s regulatory risk and potentially exposed the company to closer attention from law enforcement.

Corroboration claims

Playtech’s own account of the review, filed with the London Stock Exchange on 9 September, presents the findings in sharper terms than Bloomberg’s reporting suggests.

The company said Spectrum was able to “specifically corroborate” several of Black Cube’s original findings, including concerns about prohibited-market access, the regulatory implications of Evolution’s practices, and a lack of proactive customer monitoring.

Playtech said Spectrum was unable “to confirm or refute” other elements because Evolution declined to hand over information the investigators had requested, including data on gaming sessions in Iran, Syria and Sudan, along with revenue reports for those jurisdictions.

Playtech’s filing argued this gap meant Evolution still had “serious questions to answer” about prohibited-market access. The Financial Times, in its own reporting on the review, said Spectrum did not identify evidence supporting the allegations that Evolution operated in those specific sanctioned jurisdictions, a more concrete framing than Playtech’s “unresolved” characterisation.

On compliance, Playtech quoted the review as finding Evolution “does not take any proactive steps” to ensure operators comply with contract terms, calling the issues “significant” and “problematic,” and said they placed Evolution “in a precarious situation with law enforcement officials.”

Evolution had called the review exonerating while citing proprietary financial information as grounds to keep it confidential; Playtech said the real reason was the compliance findings themselves.

A costly conviction

Playtech’s confidence in the underlying Black Cube investigation has been expensive to maintain. Court filings indicate the company has covered Black Cube’s fees and those of its law firm, Calcagni & Kanefsky, with total costs reportedly running into the millions of pounds. Those filings also detailed a tiered success-fee structure tied to media coverage of the findings and to regulators opening formal inquiries.

That commitment carried a share-price cost too. When Evolution named Playtech as the Black Cube client in October 2025, Playtech’s shares fell as much as 39% intraday, closing down around 30% on the day. Playtech has not walked back its position since; its latest RNS repeats the same language it used at the time, standing by its decision to commission the investigation.

Beyond one dispute

Playtech is a much larger business than the Evolution dispute alone suggests. Founded in 1999 and listed on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange, the company employs more than 7,400 staff across 20 countries and operates in more than 50 regulated jurisdictions, built around its proprietary PAM+ platform.

Its most recent full-year results, reported by iGaming Republic in March, showed group revenue of €763.6 million for 2025, a 10% year-on-year decline, following the completion of a €2.3 billion sale of Italian betting business Snaitech and a €1.8 billion special dividend to shareholders.

Regulatory clearance

Evolution’s own position rests heavily on the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, which closed its review of the allegations in February 2024 without corrective action. At the time, Evolution said the regulator “found no evidence that Evolution sanctioned, promoted, permitted, or otherwise materially benefitted from its content offered by operators in any market that the NJDGE considers a prohibited jurisdiction.”

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board closed a parallel review around the same period.

Five years and counting

Evolution was not publicly positioned as Playtech’s rival for years. That changed in October 2025, when Evolution named Playtech as the client behind the original investigation. Subsequent filings detailed the payments Playtech made to Black Cube for the work. According to court filings submitted to a New Jersey court on November 3, 2025, Playtech paid private intelligence firm Black Cube more than £1.8 million to investigate Evolution.

Evolution then moved to draw Playtech directly into its own defamation suit against Black Cube, a bid a New Jersey judge denied earlier in 2026. Black Cube has continued to file sworn evidence supporting its findings as the case has progressed toward trial.

Evolution’s shares were down around 2% on the day the Spectrum review became public, a modest reaction next to the market moves both companies have seen at earlier points in this dispute. With the review now public and the underlying case still active, both sides have fresh material to argue over as the litigation continues.