2 unchanged sentences
In addition, we may receive notifications alleging infringement of patent or other intellectual property rights.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Playtika Holding Corp.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the Company’s IPO as defendants in the lawsuit.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On November 30, 2022, the Company filed with the Court a motion to dismiss.
−Removed: The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on March 18, 2024.
−Removed: However, on April 15, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
−Removed: The plaintiffs’ appeal has been briefed and is currently pending.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Antokol., et al.).
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The complaint also asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, and aiding and abetting.
−Removed: The complaint seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and restitution by the director defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Playtika Holding Corp.
−Removed: When the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v.
−Removed: Playtika Holding Corp.
−Removed: was granted as discussed above, this action was administratively closed.
−Removed: The Company does not expect this action to move forward until after the appeal of the class action case of Bar-Asher v.
−Removed: Playtika Holding Corp.
−Removed: has been decided.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: (“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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Motion asserts damages of NIS 50 million.
−Removed: On January 12, 2023, PGI filed its response to the Motion for Approval.
−Removed: On March 5, 2023, the applicant submitted his reply to PGI’s response.
−Removed: A pre-trial hearing was held on May 4, 2023.
−Removed: The parties agreed to appoint a mediator to try and resolve the dispute.
−Removed: The first mediation meeting was held on August 16, 2023 and the second mediation meeting was held on January 7, 2024.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: A hearing on the settlement took place on December 15, 2024, during which the court provided feedback and requested clarification regarding the proposed settlement.
−Removed: In response, the Company submitted a modified settlement on January 20, 2025.
−Removed: An additional hearing took place on February 19, 2025, during which the Court provided additional feedback regarding the modified settlement.
−Removed: The parties have been asked to consider making additional modifications at this time.
−Removed: The expected range of loss is not material to the Company’s financial statements as a whole.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: The lawsuit alleges
+Added: 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.
2 unchanged sentences
The court issued a written opinion on May 3, 2024 granting the motion to dismiss the claims against the Company’s officers.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On June 7, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G.
−Removed: Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al.
−Removed: matter described above, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records, particularly relating to the share repurchase program the Company announced in May 2024.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company has engaged in negotiations with Mr.
−Removed: Kormos’ counsel regarding the production of materials in relation to the demand.
−Removed: On December 12, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G.
−Removed: Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al.
−Removed: matter described above, pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL, seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records, particularly relating to the pledge of the Company’s common stock
−Removed: by Playtika Holding UK II Limited.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company has engaged in negotiations with Mr.
−Removed: Kormos’ counsel regarding the production of materials in relation to the demand.
−Removed: On November 13, 2023, plaintiff Gina v.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Court approved the settlement agreement on January 21, 2026.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: After the Company removed the case to the U.S.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Company also filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration.
−Removed: District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued an order to remand on September 26, 2024 and the Company filed a petition to appeal the order on October 7, 2024.
−Removed: The Court granted the Company’s petition for permission to appeal on January 17, 2025, and the appeal has been briefed with oral arguments scheduled for February 25, 2025.
−Removed: The other motions to dismiss and compel arbitration have been briefed and are currently pending.
+Added: The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 28, 2025.
+Added: The Company removed the case to federal court on September 29, 2025.
+Added: 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.
5 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: The Company timely removed the new complaint to the same U.S.
−Removed: district court on September 28, 2023.
−Removed: On October 20, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Franklin County Circuit Court which the Company opposed.
−Removed: District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued an order to remand on January 7, 2025, and the Company filed a petition to appeal the order on January 16, 2025.
+Added: The court ordered arbitration and stayed the case on August 20, 2025.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The suit was filed by the same counsel who represent Gayla Hamilton Mills.
+Added: The Company removed the case to the U.S.
+Added: District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 11, 2025.
+Added: Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court was filed on August 11, 2025.
+Added: The court denied the motion to remand and compelled the parties to arbitration on January 20, 2026.
+Added: Plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission for interlocutory review by the Eleventh Circuit U.S.
+Added: Court of Appeals of the denial of his motion to remand on January 30, 2026.
+Added: The Company filed its response to the petition on February 9, 2026.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration on January 31, 2025.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 11, 2025.
+Added: Plaintiff filed an opposition to the renewed motion on July 25, 2025 and the Company filed its reply on August 8, 2025.
+Added: The motion remains pending.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The parties submitted
+Added: 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.
−Removed: On February 27, 2023, the company received a deficit notice from the Ben Gurion Airport Customs House concerning the purchase of a private aircraft.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The company disputes that any tax or VAT is owed.
−Removed: On July 26, 2023, the Customs House's definitive response was received, with the deficit notice still intact.
−Removed: The current claimed amount of the deficit notice is approximately $3.6 million.
−Removed: The Company paid the deficit notice under protest and filed a claim with the district court on December 12, 2023.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: A pre-trial meeting, which was scheduled with the court for November 14, 2024 was postponed with no new date currently set.
−Removed: In the meantime, the parties have continued to engage in the discovery process and have also engaged in preliminary settlement discussions.
−Removed: The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On July 26, 2024, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of 4,549 claimants.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Company declined to waive such provisions and, as a result, the arbitration was closed on October 3, 2024.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: District Court for the District of Utah, alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Utah law.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on February 17, 2026.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: On August 5, 2025, we were notified that the law firm was continuing to solicit claimants and that they now represented 4,688 claimants.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.
−Removed: On October 17, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a different set of affiliated law firms 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.
−Removed: On January 31, 2025, the affiliated law firms filed arbitration demands on behalf of approximately 1,500 claimants.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The notice demands the full restitution of all amounts expended by the claimants, restitution and disgorgement, interest, and other damages and attorneys’ fees.
+Added: As of the date hereof, the Company lacks adequate information to assess the nature or validity of these claims.
+Added: As such, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, these claims may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
+Added: The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.
+Added: 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 .
+Added: 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.
+Added: matter is in its preliminary stages.
+Added: Accordingly, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
+Added: The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.
+Added: 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.
+Added: (“PGI”), alleging misleading price presentation in connection with in-app purchases offered to Israeli users in U.S.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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:
+Added: USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2025.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: In December 2024, the Company provided to the Seller parties in the Youda Games acquisition the calculation of the earnout amount.
−Removed: The Sellers have disputed the calculation of the earnout amount.
−Removed: As this dispute is in the preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
−Removed: The Company intends to defend its positions vigorously.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The matter is in its preliminary stages.
+Added: Accordingly, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, it may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.
+Added: The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.
+Added: On March 26, 2024, the Tel Aviv 3 Tax Office (the “ITA”) issued an assessment order (the “2017 Assessment Order”) to Playtika Ltd.
+Added: for tax year 2017 alleging that Playtika Ltd.
+Added: should have applied a higher tax rate to certain income and denying certain tax credits.
+Added: The 2017 Assessment Order claimed that, as of March 26, 2024, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: was obliged to pay additional taxes (including interest and CPI linkage) for tax year 2017 in the amount of approximately NIS 72.9 million.
+Added: On April 14, 2024, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: filed a notice of appeal in the Tel Aviv District Court challenging the 2017 Assessment Order.
+Added: On May 15, 2024, the ITA filed its statement of assessment grounds, and on December 1, 2024, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: filed its statement of appeal grounds.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The 2018 Assessment Order claimed that, as of June 12, 2025, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: was obliged to pay additional taxes (including interest and CPI linkage) for tax year 2018 in the amount of approximately NIS 85.8 million.
+Added: On June 26, 2025, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: filed a notice of appeal and a case was opened in the Tel Aviv District Court.
+Added: On July 14, 2025, the ITA filed its statement of assessment grounds, and on September 29, 2025, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: filed its statement of appeal grounds.
+Added: On December 14, 2025, the cases relating to the 2017 Assessment Order and 2018 Assessment Order were consolidated and a preliminary hearing occurred.
+Added: 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.
+Added: In this hearing, the ITA informed the Court that it was rescinding its claims disallowing the aircraft-related business expenses.
+Added: On December 11, 2025, the ITA issued an assessment order (the “2019-2021 Assessment Order”) to Playtika Ltd.
+Added: for tax years 2019-2021.
+Added: 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.
+Added: In addition, in the 2019-2021 Assessment Order, the ITA alleged that the interest rate set for intercompany loans Playtika Ltd.
+Added: provided should have been higher under transfer pricing principles.
+Added: 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.
+Added: per the ITA’s claims.
+Added: The 2019-2021 Assessment Order claimed that, as of December 11, 2025, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: 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.
+Added: On December 31, 2025, Playtika Ltd.
+Added: filed a notice of appeal regarding the 2019-2021 Assessment Order and a case was opened in the Tel Aviv District Court.
+Added: On January 28, 2026, the ITA filed its statement of assessment grounds.
+Added: Playtika Ltd.’s current deadline for filing its appeal arguments is March 1, 2026 (subject to extensions).
+Added: 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:
+Added: USD $1.00, which was the exchange rate in effect on December 31, 2025.
+Added: remains subject to continued accrual interest and linkage of the Israeli CPI until paid.
+Added: The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously.
+Added: See Note 22, Income Taxes , to our audited consolidated financial statements for additional information.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
1 unchanged sentence
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.