New Evidence in Gambling Giants’ War: Black Cube Hits Evolution with New Court Filing

Motion to Dismiss in Light of UPEPA

Black Cube is seeking the dismissal of Evolution’s lawsuit, citing the UPEPA (New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act). The firm argues that Evolution’s lawsuit constitutes an example of a so-called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)—a legal strategy aimed at silencing criticism through costly litigation.

Black Cube’s defense relies on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which provides immunity to entities petitioning government bodies (in this case, submissions to gambling regulators). Black Cube’s lawyers claim that their reports were accurate in every material respect, and that Evolution has failed to present convincing evidence that the firm acted with “actual malice.”

“Irrefutable Evidence”: Iran, France, Singapore, Sweden

A key element of the new filing is a sworn affidavit from Dr. Avi Yanus, Black Cube’s director. Yanus asserts that the new findings are “unequivocal”: Evolution’s games remain accessible and playable from territories such as Iran, Syria, and Russia, which are considered sanctioned. Furthermore, laws were allegedly violated by offering games via offshore operators in Spain, France, Italy and the UK.

According to the filing, Black Cube possesses video recordings documenting the entire user journey – from IP verification and fund deposits to the actual gameplay. The documentation lists:

• Iran: Over 25 video recordings from 2022–2025 showing successful bets in Evolution games from within the country.

• Russia and Syria: Evidence of game availability in Russia (12 recordings) and Syria (9 recordings).

• France: Confirmation that France remains a black market where Evolution is not permitted to offer its services, yet the games are available there.

The filing also quotes Evolution’s former Commercial Director for North America, who allegedly admitted that the company operates in “sanctioned countries,” a fact he described as a “shock.”

The “Competitor” Issue and Commercial Speech

The theme of competition runs through the background of the legal dispute. Evolution argues that Black Cube’s actions were funded by a rival company (widely identified in the industry as Playtech, though referred to in court documents as a “competitor”), claiming this should preclude free speech protection in favor of the so-called commercial speech exception.

Black Cube rejects these allegations, pointing out that the commercial speech exception does not apply because the report did not concern the sale of Black Cube’s own goods or services. Lawyers argue that the fact the investigation was funded by a competitor does not strip the investigators of their right to invoke UPEPA protection.

Evolution’s Reaction and Counterarguments

Evolution is attempting to undermine the credibility of Black Cube’s evidence, pointing to technical aspects of the recordings such as the use of private IP addresses or alleged inconsistencies in system clocks within the footage. The company also claims that the lack of enforcement action by the supervisory body, the DGE (Division of Gaming Enforcement), after receiving the initial report proves the accusations were baseless.

Black Cube counters by calling Evolution’s objections “splitting hairs,” emphasizing that individual failed attempts to access games do not negate the existence of dozens of recordings confirming regulatory violations.

The New Jersey court must now decide whether to grant Black Cube’s motion to dismiss the case or allow the litigation to proceed, potentially revealing even more secrets from behind the scenes of the global online gambling market.