Evolution and Black Cube Clash as Discovery Dispute Deepens

The legal conflict involving Evolution AB, Playtech, and investigative firm Black Cube has moved deeper into procedural disputes, with recent court activity focusing on document disclosure and compliance with discovery orders. After four years, the case has shifted away from the original allegations and toward disagreements over transparency, access to information, and litigation strategy.

The dispute began in 2021, when Black Cube published a report alleging that Evolution’s live casino products were accessible in certain restricted markets. Evolution rejected the claims as inaccurate and defamatory, maintaining that its systems met regulatory requirements. Regulatory authorities, including the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, reviewed the matter, and senior Evolution executives later gave sworn testimony during 2023 and 2024. These reviews ended without enforcement action, but the issue continued in court through defamation claims brought by Evolution.

Discovery Orders Take Center Stage

The current phase of the case centers on discovery, the pretrial process requiring both sides to exchange relevant information. On 9 September, the New Jersey Superior Court ordered Black Cube to disclose records related to its investigation, including payment details, invoices, and the identities of those involved.

In November filings, Evolution alleged that Black Cube failed to provide information about payments made after the 2021 report, despite deposition testimony suggesting that Evolution-related work continued. Evolution also argued that Black Cube withheld the names of personnel connected to the investigation and obstructed further deposition of founder Avi Yanus. According to Evolution, these omissions affect whether Black Cube’s actions qualify for protection under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

Black Cube disputes these claims, arguing that Evolution accepted the court’s discovery schedule and that further disclosure is unnecessary for pending motions. The court has not yet ruled on these arguments.

Counterclaims and Regulatory Documents

Black Cube has also accused Evolution of failing to comply with a 2 December court order requiring production of documents linked to regulatory inquiries by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. These materials include reports referenced in regulatory correspondence, submissions to authorities, and communications with regulators.

Black Cube contends that Evolution has withheld these records while seeking a broad protective order to keep them confidential, a position it says conflicts with Evolution’s earlier public references to regulatory findings. Evolution responded that the documents contain sensitive, non-public business information and that confidentiality is necessary to avoid competitive harm. The company also emphasized its cooperation with regulators.

Ongoing Questions

Regulatory scrutiny remains a central point of disagreement. Black Cube has highlighted the scope of the DGE’s review, including sworn interviews conducted in Stockholm with senior executives, as evidence that the allegations merited examination. Evolution has pointed to the lack of enforcement action as support for its claim that the report lacked substance.

With no rulings yet on compliance or sanctions, the case continues to hinge on credibility and disclosure, leaving key questions unresolved.

Source:

“Saga continues: Evolution faces Black Cube counterclaims over transparency”, igamingbusiness.com, December 24, 2025