XML 27 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.3
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
In December 2016, a copywriter lawsuit was filed against Wooga GmbH (a subsidiary of the Company) in the regional court of Berlin, Germany. The Plaintiff is suing for additional remuneration to his contributions for a storyline provided for one of Wooga's games and alleged reuse of parts of that storyline in one of Wooga’s other games. The next court hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2023. As of September 30, 2023, the Company has recorded in its financial statements a reserve based upon its best estimate outcome. It is possible that any final amounts payable in connection with this lawsuit could exceed the Company’s currently reserved best estimate. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.

In November 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, Playtika, Ltd., sent an initial demand letter to Enigmatus s.r.o., a game developer in the Czech Republic, which owns various U.S. trademark registrations that resemble the Company’s Sloto-formative trademark names, demanding that it cease use of the trademark Slotopoly. In response, Enigmatus s.r.o. asserted that it was the owner of the Sloto-formative trademarks and denied that its game title infringed upon the Company’s trademarks. Enigmatus s.r.o. applied to register one of the Company’s trademarks in the United Kingdom and European Union, and the Company successfully opposed its applications. In December 2016, Enigmatus s.r.o., filed a trademark infringement lawsuit, Enigmatus, s.r.o. v. Playtika LTD and Caesars Interactive Entertainment, Inc., against Playtika, Ltd. and Caesars Interactive Entertainment LLC in the Federal Court of Canada asserting that the Company’s use of the Slotomania trademarks violates its proprietary and trademark rights. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. Pleadings have been exchanged and documentary discovery completed. A hearing for summary trial was conducted between June 27-29, 2023. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

On November 23, 2021, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al.). The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, and alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the Company’s IPO as defendants in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the Court, the Company and other defendants in the case filed a letter notifying the Court of defendants’ service upon plaintiffs of, among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’
amended complaint. On November 30, 2022, the Company filed with the Court a motion to dismiss. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.

On November 4, 2022, the Company and certain of its directors were named in a derivative action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bushansky v. Antokol., et al.). The complaint was brought on behalf of the Company by a putative stockholder alleging that the named directors were negligent in their oversight of the preparation of the Company’s Proxy Statement in alleged violation of federal securities laws and that those directors breached their fiduciary duties upon related allegations. The complaint also asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, and aiding and abetting. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and restitution by the director defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Based upon an agreement of plaintiff, the Company, and the other defendants, on February 13, 2023, the Court stayed this action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

On May 17, 2022, Guy David Ben Yosef filed a Motion for Approval of a class action lawsuit in district court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa Israel against Playtika Group Israel Ltd. (“PGI”), on behalf of all of PGI’s customers who made game token purchases in Israel as part of games marketed by PGI during the seven years preceding the filing of the motion and for all subsequent customers of such games who purchase tokens until the resolution of the claim. The Motion alleges that certain of the Company’s slot, poker and solitaire-themed games, including Slotomania, Caesars Slots, Solitaire Grand Harvest, House of Fun and Poker Heat, constitute illegal gambling and are prohibited under Israeli law and are misleading under Israeli consumer protection laws and alleges unjust enrichment. The Motion asserts damages of NIS 50 million. On January 12, 2023, PGI filed its response to the Motion for Approval. On March 5, 2023, the applicant submitted his reply to PGI’s response. A pre-trial hearing was held on May 4, 2023. The parties agreed to appoint a mediator to try and resolve the dispute. The first mediation meeting was held on August 16, 2023 and the second mediation meeting is scheduled for October 30, 2023. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. If a mediated resolution will not be reached the Company will continue defending this case vigorously.

On April 10, 2023, Playtika Holding UK II Limited, the Company’s controlling shareholder, and certain officers of the Company were sued (Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al.) in the Delaware Chancery Court. The lawsuit alleges generally that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its stockholders with respect to the controlling shareholder’s indication of an interest in selling some or all of its shares, and the resulting strategic review process and self-tender offer. On August 18, 2023, defendants filed with the Court motions to dismiss the claims. A hearing on the motions to dismiss is scheduled for November 21, 2023. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.

On March 8, 2023, plaintiff Gayla Hamilton Mills filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, alleging that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. After the Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, plaintiff dismissed the complaint and filed a very similar new complaint in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama on August 25, 2023. The new complaint asserted the same cause of action and bases for relief, but limited the requested recovery to the amounts paid to the Company in connection with its games only by those Alabama residents who spent less than $75,000 during the one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. The Company timely removed the new complaint to the same U.S. district court on September 28, 2023. On October 20, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Franklin County Circuit Court. The Company intends to oppose the motion to remand. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.
On February 27, 2023, the company received a deficit notice from the Ben Gurion Airport Customs House concerning the purchase of a private aircraft. The deficit notice claims that the company's acquisition of the aircraft is an import into Israel, and, as a result, it was obliged to pay purchase tax and VAT for the acquisition. The company disputes that any tax or VAT is owed. On July 26, 2023, the Customs House's definitive response was received, with the deficit notice still intact. The current claimed amount of the deficit notice is approximately $3.6 million. The Company paid the deficit notice under protest and intends to file a claim with the district court. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously.

The Company received seven demands for arbitration in late 2022 and early 2023 alleging that its games constitute illegal gambling under applicable state law. These demands generally attempted to recover amounts spent by third parties on the Company’s games by relying on state gambling loss recovery statutes. Of these demands, only two remain pending. In one, the arbitrator has indicated that he intends to grant the Massachusetts claimant’s request to end the arbitration and seek recourse in an appropriate court. The other arbitration (in Ohio) remains in a preliminary stage. As these matters remain in early or procedural stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the arbitrations may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company will continue to defend these matters vigorously.