The legal view: Will the Evolution-Playtech dispute impact regulator attitudes?

Evolution and Playtech put the rest of the industry on hold this week, as an ongoing dispute between the two giants went public.

Live casino supplier Evolution stands accused by its competitor of operating in unregulated markets, while Playtech stands accused of launching a private investigation and smear campaign into its rival.

Both companies released official statements and have seen share prices fall in the days that followed. But could the legal battle, which will see both parties face off in the New Jersey Superior Court, have ramifications for the wider industry?

We spoke to Richard Williams, Partner at Keystone Law, John Hagan, Partner at Harris Hagan, and Peter Wilson, Director at PWL Legal, for their views.

The story so far - Evolution

Evolution this week said "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 (a private investigation firm) and paying them over £1.8m ($2.4m) to fabricate a report they knew would have extremely harmful repercussions. The report, which was furnished to regulators by a law firm representing Black Cube, Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, and purposely leaked to the media, was determined by two state regulators in the US to be lacking in evidentiary support. Later, the New Jersey Superior Court also determined that the defamatory report was untruthful and lacked veracity. Notwithstanding those findings, dissemination of the report has resulted in multi-billion dollar damage to our company."

The supplier added: "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. We will continue to hold Black Cube, Playtech and all the other players in this defamatory scheme responsible for their misconduct. We are confident in our legal position and look forward to finally holding Playtech and its accomplices to account for the significant harm they have caused."

The story so far - Playtech

Playtech, another industry giant that also offers live casino services, responded with its own statement, suggesting any notion that it is "engaged in a smear campaign is wholly untrue."

The organisation continued: "Playtech stands by the decision to commission the report. 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. Playtech welcomes court examination of the report and its findings."

Bringing "as much heat as light"

So how might the dispute impact the gambling industry overall, in terms of the business relationship between competitors - but also the attitudes of regulators?

John Hagan, Partner at Harris Hagan, relates the case to the current political climate in the UK. With an Autumn Budget due from the UK Government next month that could impact gambling tax rates, there is much scrutiny on black-market operations. This, of course, is true of regulated markets across the globe.

Hagan told Global Gaming Insider: "Gambling companies invest heavily in taxes and regulatory compliance for the privilege of being GB licensed and having access to the GB market. We believe it is incumbent on all GB stakeholders to play their part in ensuring that we get the balance right between consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand and protection from harm on the other, and restricting access of GB consumers to the illegal market is a critical component of that balance. This issue is already very much at the forefront of the minds of industry and regulators, and this internecine dispute brings as much heat as light."

"No significant legal implications" in the UK

Meanwhile, Richard Williams, Partner at Keystone Law, is confident there will be no significant legal implications in the UK. Nor, in fact, does he feel there will be any regulatory action in the US based on the Black Cube report. Internationally, though, regulators "may want to take a closer look at markets where games provided by their licensed software developers are being offered."

Williams proffered to Global Gaming Insider: "I don't think the Evolution-Playtech dispute will have any significant implications for the wider gambling industry in the UK (although it could of course have more significant financial implications for Playtech). We know Evolution's operating licence was already under review by the Gambling Commission in December 2024 and that review wasn't based on the Black Cube report (which contained allegations that Evolution games were being supplied in sanctioned countries and black markets). It's likely that the British regulator's attention is now falling on other B2B games suppliers whose games may be available in the UK through unlicensed B2C operators, but that process had already started and I doubt therefore that this private dispute between Evolution and Playtech will have any significant legal implications for the wider industry in the UK. Beyond the UK, regulators may want to take a closer look at the markets where games provided by their licensed software developers are being offered, but as the Black Cube report was found by the New Jersey regulator to have no substance, it's unlikely that the report itself will trigger any regulatory action.

What role should competitors play in investigating black-market activity?

Finally, Peter Wilson, Director at PWL, does feel this case has prompted discussions about the use of private investigators between competitors. These talks, he believes, will be occurring at both boardroom at regulator level.

He told Global Gaming Insider: "This week's press releases from Evolution and Playtech set the scene for an almighty battle in the New Jersey Superior Court. While Evolution started the civil suit several years earlier, it is still in the discovery stage and is probably not going to be ready for trial for many months. Yet already it is likely to have prompted discussions in gambling company boardrooms about the use of private investigators to look into competitors, and the impact that public court battles can have on market perception. Quite apart from the specific facts and merits of this defamation suit, it has probably also sparked debate among regulators about what sort of active involvement (if any) operators should have in investigating the unlicensed market."