Legal & controls
Item 3 and Item 9A as filed · every verdict is the registrant’s own sentence, printed below it · a filing that fails an extraction gate reads “not extracted”
| Fiscal year | Filed | Item 3 | ICFR | disclosure controls | material weakness | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-31 | 2026-02-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business. In addition, we may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. 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 an… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2025. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2025. | ||||||
| 2024-12-31 | 2025-02-27 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business. In addition, we may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. 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 d… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2024. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2024. | ||||||
| 2023-12-31 | 2024-02-26 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business. In addition, we may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. 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… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2023. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2023. | ||||||
| 2022-12-31 | 2023-02-28 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business. In addition, we may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. 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. In its partial ruling delivered on August 18, 2020, the court dismissed the latter claim, but ordered Wooga to provide to the plaintiff revenue numbers of the game in which plaintiff’s contributions are used. Wooga complied with the court’s order. The plaintiff further pursues additional remuneration claims, including filing a statement with the court on June 13, 2022 in which plaintiff is seeking Euro 8.5 million plus interest. A hearing in court was held on June 21, 2022. The parties filed their latest statements on September 26, 2022 and now await further instructions from the court. As of December 31, 2022, the Company ha… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2022. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2022. | ||||||
| 2021-12-31 | 2022-03-02 | described here | effective | effective | none in Item 9A | EDGAR |
Item 3 · From time to time, we are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions in the normal course of business. In addition, we may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights. In December 2016, a copyright lawsuit was filed against our subsidiary, Wooga, in the regional court of Berlin, Germany. The plaintiff is suing for additional remuneration for his contributions to a storyline provided for one of Wooga’s games and alleged reuse of parts of that storyline in one of Wooga’s other games. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. In November 2013, our 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 our 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 our trademarks. Enigmatus s.r.o. applied to register one of our trademarks in the United Kingdom and European Union, and we successfully opposed its appli… Item 9A · ICFR · Based on this evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2021. Item 9A · disclosure controls · Based upon that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2021. | ||||||
5 of 5 annual reports on record have their filing text cached on this host; the rest are listed with their EDGAR link and no extraction, because this surface never fetches from SEC on a page load.
- Item 3 and Item 9A are located in the filing HTML already cached on this host and read with the same line-anchored item matcher and largest-gap body disambiguation the filing-narrative pass uses for Item 1A and Item 7 — no fetch, no model, no summarization.
- A heading is accepted as a section only when it is not a table-of-contents row (a trailing page number), not a quoted reference in prose, and names its own section; the span must then clear a per-item length band and carry readable text after the heading. Anything that fails a gate is served as 'not extracted' with the reason — never as a default value.
- An effectiveness conclusion is read only from a sentence that names its own control set (disclosure controls and procedures, or internal control over financial reporting) and states an outcome. Conditional sentences — the standard limitations paragraph and forward-looking remediation language — are excluded, because they are hypotheses rather than conclusions.
- When a filing's own sentences disagree — an effective conclusion beside an unremediated material-weakness disclosure, or two conclusions of opposite sign — no verdict is asserted. A wrong 'controls were effective' reading is worse than no reading.
- Every verdict is shown beside the verbatim sentence it was read from. The excerpt is the filing's own words, capped at 1,200 characters; the filing itself is one link away.