COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. On May 17, 2024, the Company’s motion for summary trial was granted. However, the plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal. On October 4, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal and the Company considers this matter to be concluded. 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. The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on March 18, 2024. However, on April 15, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs’ appeal has been briefed and is currently pending. As the Company is awaiting a ruling on the appeals process, 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. When the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. was granted as discussed above, this action was administratively closed. The Company does not expect this action to move forward until after the appeal of the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. has been decided. As this stage, 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 was held on January 7, 2024. The parties agreed upon a settlement which was published for review by certain third parties The Office of the Attorney General filed its position on the settlement on behalf of certain professional authorities noting certain concerns regarding the proposed settlement. A hearing on the settlement has been scheduled for December 15, 2024. The expected range of loss is not material to the Company’s financial statements as a whole. If a mediated resolution is not 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 was held on November 21, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the court denied Playtika Holding UK II Limited’s motion to dismiss in an oral ruling. The court issued a written opinion on May 3, 2024 granting the motion to dismiss the claims against the Company’s officers. 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 June 7, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G. Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the litigation matter described in the immediately preceding paragraph, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records. The Company has responded to the demand, stating its belief that the demand letter fails to fully comply with the requirements of Section 220 of the DGCL. However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company has engaged in negotiations with Mr. Kormos’ counsel regarding the production of materials in relation to the demand. On November 13, 2023, plaintiff Gina v. Burt filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Tennessee, alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Tennessee law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Tennessee 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 but excluding any residents who spent $75,000 or more during such time period. After the Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Coffee County Circuit Court which the Company opposed. The Company also filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued an order to remand on September 26, 2024 and the Company has filed a petition to appeal the order. The other motions to dismiss and compel arbitration have been briefed and are currently pending. 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 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 which the Company opposed. A hearing on the motion to remand was held on March 20, 2024 and the parties are awaiting a ruling. 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 August 22, 2024, plaintiff Dianne Fuqua filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, alleging that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Kentucky law. The lawsuit seeks to recover three times the amount paid by Kentucky residents to the Company from its games during the period from August 2019 through June 2023 plus interest, costs and any other relief plaintiff is entitled to. The parties are negotiating a schedule for responsive briefing and have agreed, subject to court approval, to a response date of January 31, 2025. 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 filed a claim with the district court on December 12, 2023. The Customs House submitted its statement of defense on April 17, 2024 and the Company submitted its response to the statement of defense on June 16. A pre-trial meeting has been scheduled with the court for November 14, 2024. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously. On June 1, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a law firm purporting to represent 5,264 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games are unlawful or that they otherwise have suffered harm for which recovery is available. On July 26, 2024, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of 4,549 claimants. On September 13, 2024, the arbitrator requested that the Company waive certain dispute resolution provisions in its terms of service as a condition to its administering the arbitration. The Company declined to waive such provisions and, as a result, the arbitration was closed on October 3, 2024. On September 16, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from the same law firm purporting to represent an additional 2,560 claimants alleging the same claims as the other claimants. As of the date hereof, the Company lacks adequate information to assess the nature or validity of these claims. As such, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, these claims may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously. On October 17, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a different law firm purporting to represent 798 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games are unlawful and that the claimants made purchases in the Company’s games which were the result of unfair and deceptive practices that violate consumer protection laws. As these claims are in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, they may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously. |