The legal conflict involving Evolution AB, investigative firm Black Cube, and gaming supplier Playtech has entered another procedural phase, with recent court decisions and filings highlighting ongoing disagreements over transparency, discovery obligations, and the handling of regulatory material. Rather than resolving the original allegations that first surfaced in 2021, the litigation continues to revolve around what information must be shared, how it should be protected, and which narratives will ultimately shape the public record.
What began as a report questioning whether Evolution’s live casino products were accessible in restricted markets has transformed into a prolonged court battle in New Jersey. Over four years, the focus has shifted away from the substance of the initial claims and toward disputes about document production, depositions, and compliance with court orders. Both parties have accused the other of selective disclosure, delays, and procedural obstruction.
From investigative claims to procedural conflict
The dispute traces back to a 2021 report published by Black Cube, which alleged that Evolution’s products could be accessed in certain prohibited jurisdictions. Evolution rejected those claims at the time, describing the report as inaccurate and defamatory and maintaining that its systems complied with regulatory requirements. Subsequent court filings indicated that Playtech funded the investigation through an entity known as Veridicians, a detail that has become central to Evolution’s defamation claims.
Regulatory authorities, including the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, reviewed the allegations and Evolution’s compliance framework. Senior executives from Evolution later gave sworn testimony before regulators in 2023 and 2024. Despite the scope of that scrutiny, regulators did not impose enforcement action. Even so, the matter continued in court, where procedural disputes now dominate.
A key moment in the case came with a discovery order issued on 9 September, which required Black Cube to provide detailed records related to its investigation. These included information about payments, invoices, and personnel involved. Evolution later argued that Black Cube failed to comply fully with that order, claiming the firm withheld payment information that extended beyond the original 2021 report.
Court rejects sanctions and weighs competing orders
On 22 December, a New Jersey judge rejected Evolution’s request for sanctions against Black Cube over alleged discovery failures. Evolution had argued that Black Cube did not disclose all payments connected to its work for Playtech and sought to resume the deposition of Black Cube’s sole director, Dr. Avi Yanus. Black Cube responded that the deposition had already concluded.
At the same time, the court approved a protective order requested by Black Cube, shielding its agents from being identified publicly. Many of those individuals, according to filings, have backgrounds in Israel’s intelligence services. The court also rejected Evolution’s attempt to secure its own protective order covering certain discovery requests made by Black Cube.
Evolution argued that those requests sought sensitive internal material. In its filing, the company stated: “[The requests]
call for documents and information containing highly sensitive non-public business information, including customer lists, contracts (that contain nondisclosure provisions), detailed financial information, and other proprietary information relating to how Evolution conducts its business.
“The public disclosure of these documents, including to Evolution’s competitors in the online gaming industry, would harm Evolution.”
Black Cube countered by accusing Evolution of trying to control public perception while limiting scrutiny of its own conduct. In its response, Black Cube said: “Through its motion, Evolution seeks to ensure that the court of public opinion remains open, but only to Evolution – a place for Evolution to air its grievances, but not for Black Cube or C-K to defend themselves.”
Regulatory scrutiny and unresolved questions
Regulatory oversight remains a recurring point of contention in the case. Black Cube has pointed to the depth of the regulatory review as evidence that its original allegations warranted serious attention. In a 9 December memorandum, Black Cube highlighted that regulators travelled to Stockholm to conduct sworn interviews with senior Evolution executives, including CEO Martin Carlesund and other members of management.
Evolution, for its part, has consistently emphasized that no enforcement action followed those investigations. The company has argued that the absence of penalties supports its position that the original report lacked factual basis.
These opposing interpretations remain unresolved. The court must still determine whether Black Cube complied with the September discovery order and whether Evolution is required to disclose additional regulatory-related documents. Judges will also consider whether either side should face consequences for non-compliance.
For now, the case continues as a procedural struggle rather than a decisive ruling on the merits. Analysts have suggested the dispute could still be settled outside court, but absent an agreement, the litigation may continue for years, shaping both companies’ legal and commercial outlooks.
Source:
Saga continues: Evolution faces Black Cube counterclaims over transparency, igamingbusiness.com, December 24, 2025
