Court Filings Deepen Transparency Dispute Between Evolution and Black Cube

The long-running legal dispute involving Evolution AB, investigative firm Black Cube, and Playtech has entered another procedural phase, with recent court decisions and filings underscoring how the case has shifted away from its original allegations and toward battles over disclosure, compliance, and access to information.

What began in 2021 as an investigative report questioning Evolution’s market conduct has evolved into a complex pretrial process before the New Jersey courts. Rather than addressing the substance of the original claims, the current stage of litigation centres on discovery obligations, document production, and whether either party has failed to comply with court orders.

On December 22, 2025, a New Jersey judge denied Evolution’s request for sanctions against Black Cube, rejecting the company’s claim that the investigative firm failed to meet its discovery obligations. Evolution had argued that Black Cube did not fully disclose payments and invoices connected to its work, which was commissioned by Playtech, Evolution’s London-listed competitor.

Evolution also sought to compel the continuation of the deposition of Black Cube’s sole director, Dr. Avi Yanus. Black Cube maintained that the deposition had already been completed, a position the court accepted when it declined to order further testimony.

The ruling followed an earlier development in which the court approved Black Cube’s own protective order. That decision shielded Black Cube’s agents from being identified publicly, including individuals described as veterans of Israel’s intelligence services.

At the same time, the court rejected Evolution’s separate attempt to obtain a protective order covering materials sought by Black Cube during discovery. Evolution had argued that the requests targeted sensitive commercial information. In its filings, 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 challenged that position, responding:
“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.”

The sanctions decision followed weeks of filings tied to a separate discovery dispute heard earlier in December. That hearing related to Evolution’s effort to enforce a September 9 court order requiring Black Cube to produce information connected to its investigation, including payment records, invoices, and the identities of individuals involved.

Evolution alleged that Black Cube failed to disclose post-2021 payments, despite deposition testimony suggesting that Playtech continued funding Evolution-related investigative work after the original report. Evolution also claimed that Black Cube obstructed discovery by failing to identify personnel involved in the investigation and by preventing the continuation of Avi Yanus’ deposition.

According to Evolution, the alleged omissions are material to determining whether Black Cube’s activities were commercial in nature, a factor relevant to protections under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.

Black Cube has disputed these assertions, arguing that Evolution waived certain discovery rights by proceeding under the court’s established schedule and that additional disclosures are unnecessary for pending UPEPA-related motions. The court has not yet ruled on those arguments.

Regulatory reviews continue to feature prominently in the dispute, though the parties differ sharply on their significance. Black Cube has pointed to scrutiny by regulators, including the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, as evidence that its original allegations warranted serious examination.

In filings dated December 9, Black Cube noted that the DGE travelled to Stockholm, Sweden, where it conducted sworn interviews with senior Evolution executives, including CEO Martin Carlesund, then-CFO Jacob Kaplan, and Chief Legal and Compliance Officer Julia Simonsson.

Evolution, for its part, has consistently emphasised that regulatory reviews concluded without enforcement action. The company has cited this outcome as evidence that the allegations in Black Cube’s report were unfounded.

Disagreements over regulatory materials have also surfaced in discovery. Black Cube accused Evolution of failing to comply with a December 2 court order requiring the production of documents linked to inquiries by the DGE and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. Evolution responded that the materials contain sensitive, non-public business information and require confidentiality protections to avoid competitive harm.

Top casinos

125% up to

$1000

Overall Rating

64

Visit Casino Read Review

Rather than moving toward resolution of the underlying claims, the litigation has become a contest over credibility and narrative control. Evolution argues that Black Cube’s investigation was commercially motivated, funded by a competitor, and extended beyond its original scope. Black Cube counters that Evolution has selectively disclosed information while resisting scrutiny of less favourable material.

Both sides accuse the other of delay, inconsistency, and strategic secrecy. The court must now determine whether either party failed to comply with discovery orders and whether sanctions or additional protections are warranted.

Until those issues are resolved, the Evolution–Black Cube case remains focused on procedural skirmishes that will shape what information enters the public record long before any ruling on the merits.

Source:

, igamingbusiness.com, December 24, 2025