Evolution and Black Cube Clash Over Disclosure in Court

A prolonged legal conflict involving Evolution AB, investigative firm Black Cube, and competitor Playtech has entered another procedural stage, with recent court filings highlighting disputes over document disclosure, regulatory records, and control of how the case is presented publicly. After four years, the litigation has shifted away from the original allegations that first drew attention in 2021 and now centers on pretrial discovery and compliance with court orders in New Jersey.

The latest developments do not resolve the underlying claims that sparked the dispute. Instead, they underline how the case has evolved into a contest over access to information and how that information may shape future legal and commercial outcomes. A court hearing held on 12 December addressed Evolution’s motion to enforce a discovery order issued on 9 September and its request for sanctions against Black Cube and its legal counsel, Calcagni & Kanefsky, for alleged failures to comply with that order.

The dispute originated in 2021, when Black Cube published an investigative report alleging that Evolution’s live-casino products could be accessed in certain restricted jurisdictions. Evolution rejected the findings at the time, describing the report as inaccurate and defamatory and maintaining that its systems met regulatory requirements.

Subsequent court filings indicated that Playtech, through an entity known as Veridicians, funded Black Cube’s investigation. That funding relationship has since become a central element of Evolution’s legal strategy, particularly as the company seeks to show that the investigation served commercial interests rather than public ones.

Regulators reviewed the allegations following publication of the report. The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement examined Evolution’s compliance, and by 2023 and 2024 senior executives from the company gave sworn testimony before the regulator. Despite this scrutiny, no enforcement action was taken. Even so, the dispute continued through the courts, with Evolution pursuing defamation claims against Black Cube and related parties.

The current phase of the litigation focuses on discovery, the pretrial process requiring both sides to exchange relevant information. On 9 September, the New Jersey Superior Court ordered Black Cube to provide detailed materials connected to its investigation of Evolution. The order covered records such as payments, invoices, and the identities of individuals involved in the work.

In motions filed on 5 November and 17 November, Evolution argued that Black Cube failed to disclose payment information covering periods after 2021. According to Evolution, deposition testimony suggested that Playtech continued to fund Evolution-related investigative work beyond the initial report. The company also claimed that Black Cube did not identify employees or contractors tied to the investigation and impeded the continuation of founder Avi Yanus’ deposition.

Evolution characterized these alleged gaps as intentional and argued that undisclosed payments could demonstrate that Black Cube’s conduct was commercial in nature. That issue carries legal weight because it could affect whether Black Cube qualifies for protections under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which allows for early dismissal of claims tied to speech on matters of public concern.

Black Cube has rejected Evolution’s position, stating that Evolution waived certain discovery rights by proceeding under the existing schedule and that additional disclosure is unnecessary while UPEPA motions remain pending. The court has yet to rule on these arguments.

Black Cube has also raised concerns about Evolution’s compliance with court directives. In recent filings, Black Cube accused Evolution of failing to meet a 2 December order requiring production of documents related to inquiries by the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. These materials include reports cited in regulatory correspondence, submissions to regulators, and communications exchanged with regulatory bodies.

According to Black Cube, Evolution has instead sought a broad protective order to keep those documents confidential. Black Cube argued that this approach conflicts with Evolution’s earlier public litigation strategy, which involved referencing discovery materials and discussing investigative outcomes.

Evolution responded that the documents contain sensitive, non-public business information and require protection to prevent competitive harm. The company also stated that it cooperated extensively with regulators and addressed any compliance issues raised during reviews. As with other discovery disputes in the case, the court has not yet issued a decision.

Top Blackjack casinos

up to

£30

Overall Rating

92

Visit Casino Read Review

100% up to

₹15000

Overall Rating

91

Visit Casino Read Review

100% up to

€100

+ 50 Free Spins

Overall Rating

88

Visit Casino Read Review

Regulatory involvement continues to play a key role in the arguments raised by both sides. Black Cube has emphasized the depth of the DGE’s review, including sworn testimony from senior executives in Stockholm, Sweden, as evidence that the original allegations warranted serious examination. In a 9 December memorandum, Black Cube noted that regulators conducted interviews with Evolution CEO Martin Carlesund, then-CFO Jacob Kaplan, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer Julia Simonsson, and other executives.

Black Cube argued that this level of scrutiny does not align with Evolution’s assertion that the report was “objectively baseless.” Evolution and its counsel, however, have repeatedly pointed to the absence of enforcement action as support for their claim that the allegations lacked merit.

The court must now determine whether Black Cube complied with the September discovery order, whether Evolution is entitled to a protective order over regulatory materials, and whether sanctions are appropriate for either party. Until those questions are resolved, the litigation remains focused on credibility, disclosure, and the record that will frame any eventual judgment.

Source:

, igamingbusiness.com, December 24, 2025