Evolution Denied Bid to Add Playtech to Defamation Lawsuit
A judge denied Evolution's attempt to add Playtech to the lawsuit stemming from the Black Cube report that wiped billions from the supplier's market value.
A New Jersey court has denied Evolution’s attempt to add Playtech as a defendant in its long-running defamation lawsuit over a 2021 report alleging the supplier operated in prohibited markets.
According to a June 5 order from the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County, Judge John Porto denied Evolution’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and its request to lift a stay imposed under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). Both motions were denied without prejudice.
The denial represents a procedural setback for Evolution. Still, it does not prevent the company from renewing its request at a later stage of the proceedings.
Evolution Sought to Add Playtech to the Case
Evolution moved in April to bring Playtech into the lawsuit, which stems from a report alleging the company operated in restricted jurisdictions including China, Iran, and Sudan.
In 2021, law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky, acting on behalf of an unnamed client, filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement based on a report prepared by private intelligence firm Black Cube.
Following the complaint, Evolution lost more than $3 billion in market value. The company later sued the law firm, alleging the report was “inaccurate, false, defamatory, and methodologically flawed.”
In February 2024, the regulator concluded its investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing by Evolution. Court filings in 2025 revealed Playtech as the unnamed client that had hired Black Cube to investigate Evolution and produce the report.
Evolution subsequently sought to add Playtech to the lawsuit. The supplier alleged that Playtech orchestrated a campaign to damage its reputation and competitive position in North America.
The April filing reportedly included allegations of trade libel, fraud, and racketeering. It named Playtech CEO Mor Weizer in connection with statements made to investors regarding the matter.
Evolution has argued that those arrangements demonstrate an effort to damage a competitor and prompt regulatory action against the company.
Playtech rejected the allegations. The company described them as baseless and maintained that it stood by both its decision to commission the report and its findings.
Anti-SLAPP Proceedings Continue
The June 5 order did not explain the court’s reasoning for denying Evolution’s request to amend its complaint.
However, NEXT.io reported that multiple sources familiar with the New Jersey legal system indicated the decision was procedural and related to ongoing proceedings under the UPEPA, New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law.
According to the report, the case could be dismissed following anti-SLAPP proceedings or proceed. At that point, Evolution may again seek to add Playtech as a defendant.
NEXT.io also reported that a hearing is scheduled for November and that retired U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler will serve as a special adjudicator to help resolve ongoing discovery disputes.
If the case proceeds beyond the anti-SLAPP stage, Evolution could again seek permission to add Playtech as a defendant.
Gambling Insider delivers the latest industry news, in-depth features, and operator reviews that you can trust. Our team combines rigorous editorial standards with decades of specialized expertise to ensure accuracy and fairness. We are committed to delivering clear, impartial, and dependable coverage across the global gambling sector.
