Evolution Report Author’s Defense Appeals, Wants to Protect Client

A years-long legal dispute stemming from accusations that the leading gaming company, Evolution, engaged in deceptive tactics, among other issues, gained traction recently. Late last month, Judge John C. Porto ordered the unmasking of the company that compiled a damaging report into Evolution.

The disclosure of the identity of the investigative firm behind the report had to be completed by March 28, 2025. However, the defense of the anonymous company, Calcagni & Kanefsky (C&K), reportedly challenged the ruling once again.

Unmasking Order Attempts to Unveil the Identity of the Research Company

The damaging report was compiled by an anonymous research firm and released in 2021. It alleged that Evolution operated in unregulated markets, among other issues. Ultimately, the report resulted in a decrease in the company’s shares. Not unexpectedly, the gaming giant then filed a lawsuit, claiming defamation.

The ruling by Judge Porto came on February 28, 2025, ordering C&K to disclose the identity of its client, which is the company that compiled the report. In his ruling, the judge acknowledged that after the release of the report, investigations by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, the gambling regulators in the respective states, found no evidence that supported the claims of the damning report.

C&K Files Another Appeal to Protect the Identity of Its Client

The latest development of the years-long legal battle saw C&K make another effort to keep the identity of its client concealed. As announced by NEXT.io, an appeal was filed by the company with the New Jersey Appellate Division on Wednesday, March 12, 2025. Ultimately, with the most recent appeal, C&K anticipates overturning the decision of Judge Porto who ordered the unmasking of the company’s client.

C&K’s latest appeal reads: “The trial court’s ruling, which it refused to stay for even a weekend to enable CK to seek a stay from this court, was based largely on (a) its demonstrably erroneous assertion that the DGE found that the report is false; (b) its decision to defer an assessment of the work CK did to find the report credible until after ordering disclosure of confidential information.”

The company argued that the release of confidential information cannot be “undone.” In addition, C&K said that disclosing such sensitive information regarding its client would violate their protection under the existing laws. The most recent development marks another hurdle in the ongoing litigation. Judging by the progress so far, it is unclear whether or not C&K’s appeal would be approved and how the legal dispute is going to be settled.