Playtika Holding Corp.PLTK
Playtika Holding Corp. Commitments Disclosure
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
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. The plaintiffs and the remaining defendant agreed to a settlement agreement and submitted the settlement agreement to the Court for approval on October 8, 2025. The Court approved the settlement agreement on January 21, 2026. The terms of the settlement do not involve any financial obligation of the Company and are not expected to have any financial impact to the Company’s financial statements as a whole.
On November 13, 2023, plaintiff Gina 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. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 28, 2025. The Company removed the case to federal court on September 29, 2025. In response to a joint motion of the parties, on January 28, 2026, the court entered an order compelling arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. 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 social casino-themed 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 court ordered arbitration and stayed the case on August 20, 2025. The parties held a preliminary arbitration conference call on December 5, 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 June 6, 2025, plaintiff Stuart Mills filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., on behalf of all Alabama-based players of the Company’s games in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. The suit, like the suit brought by Gayla Hamilton Mills, alleges 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. The suit was filed by the same counsel who represent Gayla Hamilton Mills. The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court was filed on August 11, 2025. The court denied the motion to remand and compelled the parties to arbitration on January 20, 2026. Plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission for interlocutory review by the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of the denial of his motion to remand on January 30, 2026. The Company filed its response to the petition on February 9, 2026. 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 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 to which plaintiff is entitled to. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the renewed motion on July 25, 2025 and the Company filed its reply on August 8, 2025. The motion remains pending. In addition, on November 21, 2025, the court on its own initiative ordered both parties to submit briefs addressing whether plaintiff possesses Article III (constitutional) standing for purposes of jurisdiction in federal court. The parties submitted simultaneous briefs on December 22, 2025, in response to that order. 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 October 27, 2025, plaintiff Andrew Wright filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Utah law. The lawsuit seeks to recover twice the amount of economic losses suffered by Utah residents to the Company in connection with its social casino-themed games plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on February 17, 2026. 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 October 29, 2025, plaintiff William Barbarino filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under federal and New Jersey law. The lawsuit seeks to recover up to three times the amount of economic losses suffered by New Jersey residents to the Company in connection with its social casino-themed games plus interest, attorneys’ fees and other relief the plaintiff and the putative class may be entitled to. The parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order submitting the claims to arbitration, staying the case and preserving the parties’ positions on January 27, 2026. 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 June 24, 2025, we received a letter from the Attorney General of the State of Washington alleging that our social casino-themed and bingo-themed games violate state gambling and consumer protection laws, and requesting that we pay certain monetary penalties and prevent those games from being available to play in the state in the future. The Attorney General initiated a lawsuit in King County Superior Court in the State of Washington on February 3, 2026, against the Company and several of its subsidiaries asserting those same allegations. The Attorney General is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, recovery of monies spent by Washington players in the games, civil statutory penalties, costs and fees, and other relief. 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 July 8, 2025, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from another law firm purporting to represent 3,860 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games violate state laws against gambling and that the games use false, deceptive and misleading practices. The notice demands the payment of the greater of $5,000 or the actual amount of in-game losses for the claimants, plus punitive and other damages and attorneys’ fees as well as the cessation of the alleged unlawful conduct. On August 5, 2025, we were notified that the law firm was continuing to solicit claimants and that they now represented 4,688 claimants. On November 4, 2025, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of 1,642 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 February 10, 2026, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from another law firm purporting to represent 3,061 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games violate state laws against gambling, that the games use unfair and deceptive practices and that the Company has been unjustly enriched. The notice demands the full restitution of all amounts expended by the claimants, restitution and disgorgement, interest, and other damages and attorneys’ fees. 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 December 8, 2025, Toni Morrow filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against SuperPlay Ltd., relating to the game Dice Dreams. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the game constitutes unlawful gambling under Washington law and includes unfair and deceptive practices in connection with in-game purchase offers and purported “sales”, and seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief and restitution. The matter is in its preliminary stages. Accordingly, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.
On December 10, 2025, Maor Ben Shoshan filed a Motion for Certification of a class action lawsuit in the District Court in Central Lod, Israel, against Playtika Group Israel Ltd. (“PGI”), alleging misleading price presentation in connection with in-app purchases offered to Israeli users in U.S. dollars in several Playtika games, including Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Slots, and others, resulting in higher final charges due to undisclosed foreign currency conversion rates and related fees. The lawsuit seeks NIS 18,357 in personal damages to the petitioner and approximately NIS 28 million in damages to the tentative class or approximately USD $8.8 million, using the exchange rate of NIS 3.19: USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2025. A pre-trial hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 9, 2026, and PGI is required to submit its response to the motion within 90 days. 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.
On January 5, 2026, Daniela Beninati filed a putative class action in the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria Registry) against the Company, alleging that certain of our social casino-themed games constitute unlawful interactive gambling services under the Australian Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), and that the Company engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct in violation of the Australian Consumer Law in connection with the marketing and monetization of such games. The complaint seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of amounts paid for in-game virtual currency by Australian-based users, damages, interest and costs. The matter is in its preliminary stages. Accordingly, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.
On March 26, 2024, the Tel Aviv 3 Tax Office (the “ITA”) issued an assessment order (the “2017 Assessment Order”) to Playtika Ltd. for tax year 2017 alleging that Playtika Ltd. should have applied a higher tax rate to certain income and denying certain tax credits. The 2017 Assessment Order claimed that, as of March 26, 2024, Playtika Ltd. was obliged to pay additional taxes (including interest and CPI linkage) for tax year 2017 in the amount of approximately NIS 72.9 million. On April 14, 2024, Playtika Ltd. filed a notice of appeal in the Tel Aviv District Court challenging the 2017 Assessment Order. On May 15, 2024, the ITA filed its statement of assessment grounds, and on December 1, 2024, Playtika Ltd. filed its statement of appeal grounds. On June 12, 2025, the ITA issued an assessment order (the “2018 Assessment Order”) for tax year 2018 in which it repeated similar arguments to those raised in the 2017 Assessment Order and also disallowed certain aircraft-related business expenses. The 2018 Assessment Order claimed that, as of June 12, 2025, Playtika Ltd. was obliged to pay additional taxes (including interest and CPI linkage) for tax year 2018 in the amount of approximately NIS 85.8 million. On June 26, 2025, Playtika Ltd. filed a notice of appeal and a case was opened in the Tel Aviv District Court. On July 14, 2025, the ITA filed its statement of assessment grounds, and on September 29, 2025, Playtika Ltd. filed its statement of appeal grounds. On December 14, 2025, the cases relating to the 2017 Assessment Order and 2018 Assessment Order were consolidated and a preliminary hearing occurred. At the preliminary hearing, the Court determined that, in light of the expected imminent issuance of assessment orders for additional years, the deadlines for filing affidavits and the evidentiary hearing date for witness examinations would be set after the arguments are filed in connection with the additional assessment orders for tax years 2019-2021. In this hearing, the ITA informed the Court that it was rescinding its claims disallowing the aircraft-related business expenses. On December 11, 2025, the ITA issued an assessment order (the “2019-2021 Assessment Order”) to Playtika Ltd. for tax years 2019-2021. In that order, the ITA repeated similar arguments to those raised in the 2017 Assessment Order and the 2018 Assessment Order and also denied foreign tax credits in the amount of approximately NIS 19 million for tax years 2019-2021. In addition, in the 2019-2021 Assessment Order, the ITA alleged that the interest rate set for intercompany loans Playtika Ltd. provided should have been higher under transfer pricing principles. The ITA also claimed a “secondary adjustment” in the form of interest on a deemed debt balance in favor of Playtika Ltd., due to the additional deemed income owed to Playtika Ltd. per the ITA’s claims. The 2019-2021 Assessment Order claimed that, as of December 11, 2025, Playtika Ltd. was obliged to pay additional taxes (including interest and CPI linkage) for tax years 2019-2021 in the amount of approximately NIS 312.9 million. On December 31, 2025, Playtika Ltd.filed a notice of appeal regarding the 2019-2021 Assessment Order and a case was opened in the Tel Aviv District Court. On January 28, 2026, the ITA filed its statement of assessment grounds. Playtika Ltd.’s current deadline for filing its appeal arguments is March 1, 2026 (subject to extensions). The total amount of the assessments under the 2017 Assessment Order, the 2018 Assessment Order and the 2019-2021 Assessment Order was approximately USD $148 million as of the respective dates of the assessment orders, using the exchange rate of NIS 3.19: USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2025. This amount remains subject to continued accrual interest and linkage of the Israeli CPI until paid. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously. See Note 22, Income Taxes, for additional information.
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.