A business report published more than four years ago is at the center of a public dispute between British supplier Playtech and Swedish gaming technology giant Evolution AB.
Evolution revealed on Tuesday that Playtech hired private intelligence agency Black Cube in 2020 to develop a defamatory report on the company’s operations. The report claimed Evolution operated illegally in several markets, including China, Iran and Sudan. The three markets explicitly ban gambling. Evolution denies any wrongdoing.
Evolution’s announcement coincides with Black Cube revealing the name of its client in a New Jersey Superior Court case where Evolution sued Black Cube and other plaintiffs over the matter. While the name of the client was done under seal, court documents confirmed the name was released on or before Oct. 17, which would time up with Evolution’s announcement.
“It is deeply disturbing to learn that one of our competitors has gone to such extraordinary lengths to damage our business and reputation by hiring Black Cube and paying them over 1.8 million GBP to fabricate a report they knew would have extremely harmful repercussions,” said Evolution in a response to Playtech being behind the report.
Report sparks feud between Playtech & Evolution
The gaming industry first caught wind of potential violations by Evolution after “an anonymous competitor” sent the report in 2021 to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE), according to Bloomberg. The law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP was the one who provided the regulator with the report.
“Black Cube has a well-documented history of using deceitful methods to sway public opinion by launching smear campaigns on behalf of its clients,” added Evolution.
Playtech reportedly paid Black Cube roughly $2.4 million to investigate Evolution’s operations. Evolution responded to Black Cube’s report by filing a defamation lawsuit against Calcagni & Kanefsky, claiming the law firm sent the anonymous claim to regulators.
Playtech did not deny being responsible for commissioning the report, but did hit back at the notion that the material within it was untrue and obtained illegally.
“The suggestion that its [Playtech’s] subsidiary, Playtech Software Limited, engaged in a smear campaign is wholly untrue and is designed to distract from serious questions about Evolution’s business practices,” Playtech said in a statement to SBC Americas. “The investigation was undertaken lawfully to better understand and verify concerns of significant regulatory and commercial importance.”
The DGE, along with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, also initiated investigations into Evolution’s operations with the probes concluding in February 2024.
The investigations led to no enforcement against Evolution.
Evolution wants to know more
Evolution is seeking additional information regarding Black Cube’s report, including the identities of those involved and financial records of transactions. The company is also taking issue with Black Cube’s report given the alleged “unethical” conduct by the agency.
The alleged misconduct includes secretly recording meetings and using fake identities.
“Although Playtech has finally been identified after years of trying to keep its involvement in this smear campaign a secret, Black Cube continues to evade the court’s discovery orders by withholding relevant information,” continued Evolution. “We will continue to hold Black Cube, Playtech, and all the other players in this defamatory scheme responsible for their misconduct.”
Shares of Playtech were down more than 21% amid the news of its involvement in the report. The company believes the investigation it initiated was fair and permissible.
“Playtech stands by the decision to commission the report,” added Playtech. “Evolution continues to seek to avoid legitimate scrutiny rather than address longstanding questions about its conduct, including its decision to supply operators in illegal markets and to support unlicensed operators in regulated markets.”
Evolution plans to amend its complaint in New Jersey to include Playtech as a defendant after finding out the company was behind the report.
