New Jersey Judge Blocks Evolution's Bid to Add Playtech to Black Cube Defamation Suit

Evolution has been blocked, for now, from pulling rival Playtech into one of the live-casino industry's most bitter legal fights. In a June 5, 2026 order, Judge John C. Porto of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County denied Evolution's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that would have named Playtech Plc as a defendant in its defamation case over the 2021 Black Cube report. Porto also declined to lift a stay imposed under New Jersey's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), the state's anti-SLAPP statute. Both motions were denied without prejudice, so Evolution can renew the requests at a later stage.

The case so far remains pointed at the law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, which filed the original complaint with regulators, and at Black Cube itself. Evolution had sought to add Playtech alongside proposed additional defendants including public relations consultant Juda Engelmayer of HeraldPR. The claims Evolution wanted to bring against Playtech included defamation, trade libel, fraud and racketeering, with allegations that the rival commissioned the Black Cube investigation and paid the firm roughly $2.4 million. Evolution maintains the report was part of a coordinated effort to damage its reputation and weaken its competitive position in North America.

How the feud started

The fight traces to a report produced by the private intelligence firm Black Cube alleging that Evolution knowingly allowed its games to operate in prohibited or sanctioned jurisdictions including China, Iran and Sudan. In November 2021, acting for an unnamed client, Calcagni & Kanefsky submitted that report to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. Black Cube paid HeraldPR $10,000 that same month to help circulate the material. According to court filings, Playtech had begun working with Black Cube in December 2020.

The market reaction was immediate. Evolution's shares fell about 11% on the initial reports, erasing more than 2 billion euros (about US$2.2 billion) of market value, and the stock shed more than 30% over the following weeks, with roughly SEK 100 billion (about US$10 billion) wiped from its capitalization at the trough. Evolution sued weeks later, calling the report inaccurate and defamatory.

In February 2024 both regulators closed their reviews without action. The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement found "no evidence" that Evolution took illegal bets. The identity of Black Cube's client surfaced in April 2025, and in September 2025 the New Jersey Superior Court ordered Black Cube to name that client and branded the report "objectively baseless" and "not truthful." Court proceedings then identified the client as Playtech. Evolution publicly named Playtech as the commissioning party on October 22, 2025, and moved in 2026 to add it to the suit. The court has also appointed retired U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler as a special adjudicator on discovery matters, at a rate of $900 per hour. Evolution, Black Cube and Calcagni & Kanefsky are scheduled for a hearing in November 2026 on the disputed report and the UPEPA claims.

The two suppliers behind the fight

The dispute pits the live-dealer market leader against a diversified rival that has spent the past year reshaping itself. Evolution dominates the live-casino segment that anchors most online lobbies; Playtech, after the 2.3 billion euro (about US$2.5 billion) sale of its Italian operator Snaitech in April 2025, has refocused on B2B supply and a revised Caliente Interactive agreement that gave it a 30.8% direct equity stake in the Mexican operator.

Evolution's FY2025 live-casino revenue softened, with Europe down 8.1% to 366.7 million euros and Latin America down 15.0% to 50.3 million euros, while North America grew 5.8% to 71.4 million euros. The company guided 2026 EBITDA margin to stay in line with 2025. When Evolution named Playtech in its U.S. racketeering filing in October 2025, Playtech shares fell sharply, reportedly losing about 300 million pounds (about US$385 million), roughly 30% of value, on the day.

For affiliates and operators, the practical read is supply concentration. The party accused of running an opposition-research campaign and the party defending against it are the same two firms much of the live-casino lobby depends on, and the ruling keeps the question of Playtech's role in the litigation open rather than resolved. Paul Leyland of Regulus Partners, commenting on the affair, said an industry "that can only thrive with its social contract intact cannot behave like this."