On December 22, 2025, a New Jersey judge denied Evolution’s request for sanctions against Black Cube, rejecting the company’s claim that the investigative firm failed to meet its discovery obligations. Evolution had argued that Black Cube did not fully disclose payments and invoices connected to its work, which was commissioned by Playtech, Evolution’s London-listed competitor.
Evolution also sought to compel the continuation of the deposition of Black Cube’s sole director, Dr. Avi Yanus. Black Cube maintained that the deposition had already been completed, a position the court accepted when it declined to order further testimony.
The ruling followed an earlier development in which the court approved Black Cube’s own protective order. That decision shielded Black Cube’s agents from being identified publicly, including individuals described as veterans of Israel’s intelligence services.
At the same time, the court rejected Evolution’s separate attempt to obtain a protective order covering materials sought by Black Cube during discovery. Evolution had argued that the requests targeted sensitive commercial information. In its filings, the company stated:
“[The requests] call for documents and information containing highly sensitive non-public business information, including customer lists, contracts (that contain nondisclosure provisions), detailed financial information, and other proprietary information relating to how Evolution conducts its business.
“The public disclosure of these documents, including to Evolution’s competitors in the online gaming industry, would harm Evolution.”
Black Cube challenged that position, responding:
“Through its motion, Evolution seeks to ensure that the court of public opinion remains open, but only to Evolution – a place for Evolution to air its grievances, but not for Black Cube or C-K to defend themselves.”
