Evolution’s Legal Setback
An attempt by Evolution to include Playtech in its defamation lawsuit was denied by a New Jersey court. The legal action is linked to a contentious report attributed to private intelligence firm Black Cube, which impacted Evolution’s market valuation significantly. A ruling from the Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County on June 5 saw Judge John Porto refuse Evolution’s request to amend its existing complaint and lift a stay under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). Although a setback, Evolution retains the option to revisit this action in future proceedings.
Background of the Defamation Case
The case began in 2021 when a complaint by law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky, using a report from Black Cube, alleged Evolution had operations in restricted markets including China and Iran. Following this, Evolution’s market value plunged by over $3 billion. Though the New Jersey regulator’s investigation found no misconduct by Evolution, subsequent filings highlighted Playtech as the client behind Black Cube’s engagement.
Allegations Against Playtech
In April, Evolution sought to implicate Playtech, claiming it led a detrimental campaign to tarnish Evolution’s reputation in the North American market. The filing accused Playtech of trade libel, fraud, and racketeering. Playtech CEO Mor Weizer was named in the allegations concerning investor communications. However, Playtech dismissed these claims as unfounded, supporting its decision to commission the report.
Impact of Anti-SLAPP Legislation
The court’s denial of Evolution’s request to amend its lawsuit did not include detailed explanations. However, sources suggest that the ongoing UPEPA proceedings played a role. According to reports from NEXT.io, the case’s future hinges on these anti-SLAPP proceedings. A hearing is slated for November, where retired Judge Robert B. Kugler will address discovery disputes.
Future Legal Steps
As the proceedings continue, Evolution may again attempt to add Playtech as a defendant if the case surpasses the anti-SLAPP stage. Ongoing developments will be crucial in determining the lawsuit’s trajectory and the involved parties, much like the ongoing scrutiny faced by Macau’s gaming imports.