Evolution’s 2022 internal report surfaces compliance gaps in Black Cube dispute

A court filing in the legal fight between Evolution and Black Cube has forced the gambling supplier to disclose a confidential 2022 internal report. The document matters because it goes to the heart of the dispute over whether Evolution had adequate controls to stop its games from being offered in restricted markets.

1. Black Cube has been pushing for years of Evolution internal documents, arguing they are relevant to the case because they relate to the 2021 report that said Evolution’s games were available in markets where they should not have been offered. That report was later linked to Playtech, which commissioned Black Cube’s investigation.
2. Black Cube also pointed to Evolution’s settlement with the UK Gambling Commission as support for its position. In July, Evolution agreed to pay GBP 4.75 million ($6.5 million) to settle a UKGC review over content that was allegedly available on six websites run by unlicensed firms.
3. Evolution fought the disclosure request, saying the discovery demand was too broad and could delay a case approaching a scheduled hearing in November under New Jersey’s public-expression protection law. The Tuesday filing still surfaced the 2022 report.
4. According to a Financial Times report, the Spectrum Gaming Group report commissioned by Evolution says the company made little to no checks to ensure clients installed proper restrictions to block gamblers in restricted markets. The report says that this gap could create regulatory issues.
5. The report also says Evolution was indirectly receiving profits from unauthorized use of its offerings. New Jersey’s gambling regulator separately reviewed the matter and found that the company had not violated any laws, but the newly disclosed document says Evolution’s games were reportedly accessible in Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, where gambling is illegal.

For PSPs, the useful detail here is not the courtroom theatre. It is the control question: who is checking that downstream operators actually apply market-blocking restrictions, and what happens when those checks are thin on paper and even thinner in practice.