Evolution Files Motion to Uncover the Identities of Damning Report Authors

Evolution has filed a brief in New Jersey, once again seeking the identity of the group behind an anonymous 2021 report that damaged the company’s reputation. The company, which has insisted that the report’s findings are defamatory and false, has been trying to uncover the identity of its authors ever since.

Evolution Continues to Seek the Identity of the Report’s Authors

The original 2021 illegal markets report was submitted to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, which were unable to confirm its findings.

Despite that, the report resulted in a 36% decline in Evolution’s share price, corresponding to a loss value of approximately $10 billion. A Bloomberg report quoted sources who suggested that the commissioner behind the report might be an unidentified competitor who wanted to tarnish Evolution’s image.

The anonymous commissioner and author have since been represented by white collar litigation firm Calcagni & Kanefsky (C&K) in court. The firm has so far been able to protect their identities.

Evolution Believes That the Latest Evidence Proves the Report’s Untruthfulness

Evolution, which slammed the 2021 illegal markets report as methodologically flawed, has submitted a new brief in New Jersey court, seeking to finally find the mysterious author of the anonymous report.

As reported by NEXT.io author Zak Thomas-Akoo, the initial limited discovery, which sought to confirm the veracity of the report, has now been completed. Evolution believes that the findings confirm that the report was faulty and that “riddled with mistakes.” As a result, Evolution believed that it is entitled to know the identities of its authors.

NEXT.io reported that Evolution’s legal team said that the case presents the question of whether “an anonymous wrongdoer may spread demonstrably false claims against a business, causing billions of dollars of damages and then avoid accountability by laundering the false statements through counsel.”

Evolution added that the anonymous firm used deceit and subterfuge against Evolution associates, tricking people into making false claims that were secretly recorded. The goal was to suggest that Evolution was violating local regulations and operating in restricted markets.

Evolution’s lawyers pointed out that the defendants “lured current and former Evolution employees” into conversations and then cherry-picked statements that fit the picture they were trying to paint.

NEXT.io concluded that, in the meantime, C&K filed a separate brief, defending its clients’ right to remain anonymous and arguing that Evolution’s claims are insufficient to overcome the policy interests underlying RPC’s general rule of nondisclosure of a client’s identity.