A New Jersey court has declined Evolution AB’s request to expand its ongoing defamation lawsuit by adding Playtech Plc as a defendant, marking a procedural setback in a dispute that continues to move through multiple layers of litigation tied to a contested industry report.
The ruling, issued in Atlantic County Superior Court, leaves Evolution’s original complaint intact while preserving the broader legal questions surrounding a 2021 investigative report that triggered regulatory scrutiny in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The court’s decision follows months of filings and arguments over whether Playtech’s alleged involvement in commissioning the report justified its inclusion in the case.
Court Denies Request to Broaden Defendant List
Court records filed on June 5 show that Evolution’s attempt to amend its complaint and formally add Playtech was rejected. The company had moved to expand the scope of its lawsuit after earlier proceedings pointed to Playtech as the client behind private intelligence firm Black Cube, which prepared the disputed report.
Evolution originally sued New York-based law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, which had submitted the report to regulators. The later attempt to broaden the case included allegations that Playtech commissioned and financed the investigation, alongside claims involving defamation, trade libel, fraud, and racketeering.
The filing also referenced additional proposed defendants, including public relations consultant Juda Engelmayer and other individuals connected to the matter.
According to Evolution’s position, Playtech allegedly paid approximately $2.4 million to Black Cube and directed the creation of the report, which the company argues was designed to trigger regulatory pressure and damage its commercial standing.
Evolution publicly summarized its allegations in strong terms, stating:
“It continues to be disappointing that a direct competitor would go to such extreme lengths to orchestrate a covert campaign designed to harm our business and avoid competing fairly in the marketplace. 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 has rejected those claims, maintaining that its engagement with Black Cube was a legitimate investigative measure responding to industry concerns and not part of any coordinated effort against Evolution. The company has also treated the dispute as a contingent liability in its reporting.
Procedural Ruling Linked to Anti-SLAPP Motion
The court’s refusal to allow Playtech into the case at this stage is tied to procedural issues involving Black Cube’s motion under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP framework. Legal observers noted that the ruling does not necessarily prevent Evolution from revisiting the question of Playtech’s inclusion at a later stage, depending on how related motions are resolved.
The same ruling also denied Evolution’s request for relief from UPEPA protections. A hearing involving Evolution, Black Cube, and Calcagni & Kanefsky is now scheduled for November 2026, where key aspects of the disputed report and related claims are expected to be examined further.
Judge John C. Porto addressed additional discovery matters during the proceedings. The court approved Black Cube’s request to obtain further transcripts and recordings connected to communications with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE), which relate to the regulator’s investigation into the allegations raised in the report.
At the same time, the judge rejected broader requests for access to unrelated recordings and additional investigative material outside the scope of the DGE inquiry.
To manage outstanding disputes, the court appointed retired U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler as a special adjudicator. He will oversee unresolved discovery issues, including materials linked to internal reviews involving third-party assistance. Court filings indicate he will be compensated at a rate of $900 per hour.
Regulatory Findings Continue to Influence Proceedings
The dispute originates from a 2020 investigation allegedly commissioned by Playtech and conducted through Black Cube, which involved interviews conducted under false pretenses. The resulting report was later submitted to regulators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, raising claims that Evolution operated unlawfully in several jurisdictions, including China, Iran, and Sudan.
Regulatory agencies subsequently launched inquiries, though neither imposed sanctions on Evolution.
Court documents referencing the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement concluded that there was “no evidence … showing that Evolution took illegal bets from New Jersey, another state, or any other prohibited jurisdiction,” and “no evidence of inappropriate payments to Evolution by its clients or that Evolution provided devices for customers to illegally use their content.”
Judicial references in the case further noted that the report was described as “objectively baseless” in light of those regulatory findings.
Despite the ongoing litigation, Playtech continues to expand its North American presence. The company recently introduced its iPoker network through FanDuel, extending availability across Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ontario.
The broader case remains active, with further procedural decisions and discovery disputes expected before the matter moves closer to trial.
Source:
Judge Blocks Evolution Move to Expand NJ Defamation Case, news.worldcasinodirectory.com, June 17, 2026
