Gambling News
The long-running legal showdown between lot machine titans Light & Wonder and Aristocrat has taken another twist after Light & Wonder filed a formal objection to a Nevada judge’s order. The ruling would force L&W to hand over materials from an internal investigation that the company claims is protected by attorney–client privilege. With legal turns piling up, a conclusion to the dispute is nowhere in sight.
Even the Discovery Process Remains Hard-Fought
The new objection, submitted on December 8, contests the ruling by Magistrate Judge Maximiliano Couvillier last month that Light & Wonder had effectively waived privilege through the manner in which it addressed allegations surrounding the development of its Dragon Train slot series. Light & Wonder countered that the ruling misinterpreted both its viewpoint and the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent.
At the core of this fight is the issue of whether the company inadvertently allowed discovery into an internal review conducted after Aristocrat accused Emma Charles, a former employee, of taking confidential design work when she joined Light & Wonder in 2021. Aristocrat argues that Charles’ involvement in Dragon Train led to the misappropriation of game math and features central to its own Dragon Link and Lightning Link franchises.
In its most recent submission to the court, Light & Wonder announced that it has consistently informed the court and Aristocrat that it would not rely on the internal investigation at trial and would not use any of its findings to defend against the misappropriation claim. Its lawyers stated that these disavowals must be honored, and that the court order was erroneous because it ignored those commitments.
Both Companies Remain Willing to Press On
Aristocrat has consistently pressed for a broader look into its competitor’s development pipeline. The company won a significant discovery ruling earlier this autumn, granting it access to the math models that were used for several Light & Wonder titles created since Charles’ arrival. That decision overruled a prior block after the company amended its motion, specifying the elements it wanted examined.
Read the full report
