US Court Orders Evolution to Disclose Documents
On December 2, a New Jersey court ordered the provider “Evolution” to submit to the defense, by December 5, documents from its internal investigation and materials from reviews conducted by regulators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the lawsuit against “Black Cube.”
The decision was issued by Judge John C. Porto as part of the proceedings between Evolution AB, its US subsidiaries, and Black Cube. The court pointed to the need for full disclosure of materials related to regulatory reviews and internal reports.
What Documents Evolution Must Disclose
List of Mandatory Materials
The court ruled that the provider is required to submit several categories of documents to the defense. All materials must be delivered by December 5, 2025.
The list includes:
The Spectrum Gaming Group report, referenced in a letter from the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement dated February 15, 2024, including all exhibits and supplementary materials.
Documents and information that Evolution or its lawyers provided to the regulators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania as part of investigations related to the Black Cube materials.
All correspondence between Evolution and the regulators regarding the investigations.
The names of all individuals interviewed, with interview dates and the names of the interviewers representing the regulators.
Transcripts and interview notes prepared by the supervisory authorities.
Refusal to Disclose the Identities of Black Cube Agents
Protection of Personal Data and the Court’s Position
At the same time, the court rejected Evolution’s request to disclose the identities of the Black Cube agents who participated in preparing the investigation. The court found that such requests pose a risk to their safety and are not relevant to the current stage of the proceedings.
Judge Porto separately stated that identifying the investigators is not directly related to the subject of the dispute and does not affect the assessment of the evidence presented.
Statement by Black Cube and the Parties’ Reactions
Access to Games From Prohibited Jurisdictions
Both court rulings followed a statement made on December 1 by Black Cube director Avi Janus. The statement contained evidence of possible access to Evolution’s games from several prohibited jurisdictions, including Iran and France, as of October 20, 2025.
This information formed the basis for new requests by the defense to disclose correspondence and reports that had previously been unavailable for review.
The Positions of Evolution and Playtech
Comments After the Court Ruling
According to a representative of Evolution in a comment to “NEXT.io,” such requests are an attempt to divert attention from the alleged unlawful actions of “Black Cube” and “Playtech.”
In turn, Playtech told the publication that it had previously commissioned an investigation due to serious concerns related to Evolution’s business practices. These materials also became part of the overall body of evidence in the case.
Significance of the Court’s Decisions for the Case
A Shift in Focus Toward Regulatory Reviews
The court’s rulings have significantly changed the balance between the parties. Evolution’s attempt to force the disclosure of personal data of Black Cube staff was completely blocked, while the company itself is required to provide all materials previously submitted to regulators.
The focus of the case has now shifted specifically to the reports, correspondence, and interview transcripts, which may show how Evolution interacted with the supervisory authorities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Next Stages of the Legal Proceedings
The Role of the Disclosed Documents
The transfer of the Spectrum report, regulatory letters, and interview materials gives the defense direct access to the substance of the reviews. This information will make it possible to compare Evolution’s public statements with what was recorded during the regulatory procedures.
The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further procedural steps will depend on the content of the disclosed documents and the testimony of the participants in the investigations.