COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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, adding several individual plaintiffs. The Company removed the case to federal court on September 29, 2025. On January 12, 2026, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims by plaintiffs Gina Burt, Don Burt and Jamie Trimble, proceeding with Hunter Trimble as the sole named plaintiff. In response to a joint motion of the parties, on January 28, 2026, the court entered an order compelling arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on March 20, 2026. The parties completed opening briefing on certain threshold issues on September 4, 2026 and the plaintiff submitted a supplemental brief on October 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. 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 arbitrator held a hearing on preliminary issues on June 30, 2026. The parties completed post-hearing supplemental briefing on August 17, 2026. On September 22, 2026, the arbitrator issued a final award dismissing plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as barred by the Israeli choice-of-law provision in the Company’s terms of service. 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 court denied the petition on February 19, 2026 and plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on March 11, 2026. The parties submitted opening briefs on certain preliminary issues on October 1, 2026 and a hearing on those issues has been scheduled for December 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 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. On April 15, 2026, the court granted our motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. The plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on August 10, 2026. At 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 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 to which the plaintiff and the putative class may be entitled. 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. The plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on April 29, 2026 and an arbitrator was appointed on August 12, 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. The Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, to dismiss the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction and to sever the cases against the Company defendants and unrelated defendants on May 18, 2026. The Attorney General filed oppositions to these motions on July 1, 2026. The Company filed replies in support of those motions on July 30, 2026. The court held a hearing on these motions on August 7, 2026 and, on September 22, 2026, issued orders granting the motion to sever but denying the motions to dismiss. On September 25, 2026, the Company filed a motion to certify the question regarding whether the Attorney General has authority to bring an action to recover money lost by individual players under the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act for discretionary review by Court of Appeals. The Attorney General filed an opposition to the Company’s motion on October 5, 2026 and the Company filed its response on October 14, 2026. The court granted the motion to certify question for discretionary review by Court of Appeals on October 15, 2026. The Company filed its answer to the Attorney General’s complaint on October 23, 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 July 8, 2025, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a 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 approximately 4,700 claimants. On November 4, 2025, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of approximately 1,600 claimants. On March 23, 2026, the claimants filed an amended demand naming certain of the Company’s officers as additional respondents. The amended demand alleges that the officers engaged in fraud and racketeering by virtue of their authority over the Company’s games and practices which the claimant alleges violate gambling and consumer protections laws. The parties completed briefing of certain threshold issues for resolution by a merits arbitrator, and oral argument on those issues was held on October 9, 2026. On October 23, 2026, the arbitrator issued a final award enforcing the Israeli choice-of-law provision in the Company’s terms of service. As of the date hereof, 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 3,133 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. On April 30, 2026, the law firm notified the Company that it was continuing to solicit claimants and that they represented an additional 2,100 claimants. On August 31, 2026, the claimants filed arbitration demands and, on October 1, 2026, an arbitrator was appointed. The parties are expected to submit briefing on certain threshold issues by November 19, 2026 with a hearing, if needed, scheduled for December 14, 2026. 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. SuperPlay Ltd. filed its response to the complaint on April 24, 2026. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 15, 2026 and SuperPlay Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 29, 2026. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 20, 2026. SuperPlay Ltd.’s reply was filed on July 27, 2026. On September 2, 2026, the parties agreed to stay the case to discuss a potential resolution of the claims. The Company does not currently expect this matter to have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. On December 10, 2025, Maor Ben Shushan 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 misrepresentation 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 allegedly 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. On July 16, 2026, PGI filed its response to the Motion for Certification. The parties have agreed to engage in mediation, with a mediation session scheduled for November 16, 2026. As a result, the pre-trial hearing which was originally scheduled for September 9, 2026 has been rescheduled for February 14, 2027. As this litigation matter is 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. On March 26, 2026 the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit. An interlocutory hearing was held on September 24, 2026. 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 6, 2026, Crystiauna McLallen filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against SuperPlay Ltd., relating to its games, including Dice Dreams and Domino Dreams. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the games constitute unlawful gambling under Washington law and violate state consumer protection laws, and seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of a class of Washington residents who made purchases in the games. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint to add plaintiff Michael Willis to the complaint. Superplay Ltd. filed a motion to compel arbitration on August 7, 2026 and an amended motion to compel arbitration on September 18, 2026. On October 16, 2026, the parties filed a notice of settlement to advise the court that the parties reached a settlement in principle. The proposed settlement does not involve any material financial obligation of the Company and is not expected to have a material financial impact to the Company’s financial statements as a whole. 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. On April 22, 2026, the court approved the consolidation of all of the cases relating to the assessment orders described above. Playtika Ltd. filed its appeal arguments on July 21, 2026. Evidentiary hearings are currently scheduled for June 2027. The total amount of the assessments under the 2017 Assessment Order, the 2018 Assessment Order and the 2019-2021 Assessment Order was approximately USD 154 million as of the respective dates of the assessment orders, using the exchange rate of NIS 3.07 : USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on September 30, 2026. This amount remains subject to continued accrual interest and linkage of the Israeli CPI until paid. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously. On July 2, 2026, the Company received notice from Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) of an impending class settlement in a putative class action brought against Amazon by Steven Horn, an individual resident of Washington, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case seeks damages from Amazon for its facilitation of slot, bingo and poker-themed apps on its platform which allegedly violated Washington gambling law and Washington consumer protection laws, on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who made purchases in those apps. The settlement, which was filed with the court on July 9, 2026, would entitle the class to recover 30 percent of all payments made by members of the class on the Amazon platform. As part of the settlement, Amazon would assign its contractual indemnification rights against the Company to a trust established for the benefit of the settlement class. The trust then would seek to enforce the judgment against the Company. The proposed settlement assigns a share of the judgment to the Company’s subsidiaries of approximately $51 million in the aggregate. The Company, along with other developers, filed a joint motion to intervene on July 22, 2026 to oppose the proposed settlement. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to intervene on August 6, 2026 and the Company filed its reply on August 12, 2026. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

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, adding several individual plaintiffs. The Company removed the case to federal court on September 29, 2025. On January 12, 2026, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims by plaintiffs Gina Burt, Don Burt and Jamie Trimble, proceeding with Hunter Trimble as the sole named plaintiff. In response to a joint motion of the parties, on January 28, 2026, the court entered an order compelling arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on March 20, 2026. The parties completed opening briefing on certain threshold issues on September 4, 2026 and the plaintiff submitted a supplemental brief on October 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. 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 arbitrator held a hearing on preliminary issues on June 30, 2026. The parties completed post-hearing supplemental briefing on August 17, 2026. On September 22, 2026, the arbitrator issued a final award dismissing plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as barred by the Israeli choice-of-law provision in the Company’s terms of service.

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 court denied the petition on February 19, 2026 and plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on March 11, 2026. The parties submitted opening briefs on certain preliminary issues on October 1, 2026 and a hearing on those issues has been scheduled for December 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 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. On April 15, 2026, the court granted our motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. The plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on August 10, 2026. At 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 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 to which the plaintiff and the putative class may be entitled. 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. The plaintiff filed an arbitration demand on April 29, 2026 and an arbitrator was appointed on August 12, 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. The Company filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, to dismiss the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction and to sever the cases against the Company defendants and unrelated defendants on May 18, 2026. The Attorney General filed oppositions to these motions on July 1, 2026. The Company filed replies in support of those motions on July 30, 2026. The court held a hearing on these motions on August 7, 2026 and, on September 22, 2026, issued orders granting the motion to sever but denying the motions to dismiss. On September 25, 2026, the Company filed a motion to certify the question regarding whether the Attorney General has authority to bring an action to recover money lost by individual players under the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act for discretionary review by Court of Appeals. The Attorney General filed an opposition to the Company’s motion on October 5, 2026 and the Company filed its response on October 14, 2026. The court granted the motion to certify question for discretionary review by Court of Appeals on October 15, 2026. The Company filed its answer to the Attorney General’s complaint on October 23, 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.

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 approximately 4,700 claimants. On November 4, 2025, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of approximately 1,600 claimants. On March 23, 2026, the claimants filed an amended demand naming certain of the Company’s officers as additional respondents. The amended demand alleges that the officers engaged in fraud and racketeering by virtue of their authority over the Company’s games and practices which the claimant alleges violate gambling and consumer protections laws. The parties completed briefing of certain threshold issues for resolution by a merits arbitrator, and oral argument on those issues was held on October 9, 2026. On October 23, 2026, the arbitrator issued a final award enforcing the Israeli choice-of-law provision in the Company’s terms of service. As of the date hereof, 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 3,133 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. On April 30, 2026, the law firm notified the Company that it was continuing to solicit claimants and that they represented an additional 2,100 claimants. On August 31, 2026, the claimants filed arbitration demands and, on October 1, 2026, an arbitrator was appointed. The parties are expected to submit briefing on certain threshold issues by November 19, 2026 with a hearing, if needed, scheduled for December 14, 2026. 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. SuperPlay Ltd. filed its response to the complaint on April 24, 2026. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 15, 2026 and SuperPlay Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 29, 2026. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on July 20, 2026. SuperPlay Ltd.’s reply was filed on July 27, 2026. On September 2, 2026, the parties agreed to stay the case to discuss a potential resolution of the claims. The Company does not currently expect this matter to have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.

On December 10, 2025, Maor Ben Shushan 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 misrepresentation 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 allegedly 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. On July 16, 2026, PGI filed its response to the Motion for Certification. The parties have agreed to engage in mediation, with a mediation session scheduled for November 16, 2026. As a result, the pre-trial hearing which was originally scheduled for September 9, 2026 has been rescheduled for February 14, 2027. As this litigation matter is 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 March 6, 2026, Crystiauna McLallen filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against SuperPlay Ltd., relating to its games, including Dice Dreams and Domino Dreams. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the games constitute unlawful gambling under Washington law and violate state consumer protection laws, and seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief and restitution on behalf of a class of Washington residents who made purchases in the games. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint to add plaintiff Michael Willis to the complaint. Superplay Ltd. filed a motion to compel arbitration on August 7, 2026 and an amended motion to compel arbitration on September 18, 2026. On October 16, 2026, the parties filed a notice of settlement to advise the court that the parties reached a settlement in principle. The proposed settlement does not involve any material financial obligation of the Company and is not expected to have a material financial impact to the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

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. On April 22, 2026, the court approved the consolidation of all of the cases relating to the assessment orders described above. Playtika Ltd. filed its appeal arguments on July 21, 2026. Evidentiary hearings are currently scheduled for June 2027. The total amount of the assessments under the 2017 Assessment Order, the 2018 Assessment Order and the 2019-2021 Assessment Order was approximately USD 154 million as of the respective dates of the assessment orders, using the exchange rate of NIS 3.07 : USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on September 30, 2026. This amount remains subject to continued accrual interest and linkage of the Israeli CPI until paid. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously.

filed with the court on July 9, 2026, would entitle the class to recover 30 percent of all payments made by members of the class on the Amazon platform. As part of the settlement, Amazon would assign its contractual indemnification rights against the Company to a trust established for the benefit of the settlement class. The trust then would seek to enforce the judgment against the Company. The proposed settlement assigns a share of the judgment to the Company’s subsidiaries of approximately $51 million in the aggregate. The Company, along with other developers, filed a joint motion to intervene on July 22, 2026 to oppose the proposed settlement. Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to intervene on August 6, 2026 and the Company filed its reply on August 12, 2026. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.