Summary of "The Tribunal Crushed Valve's Defense: Now Steam Is On Trial"

Summary

This document summarizes a UK opt-out collective action, “Steam You Owe Us,” led by consumer advocate Vicky Shotbolt and law firm Milberg London LLP against Valve Corporation (Steam). The claim alleges competition law breaches arising from Steam’s market position and platform parity obligations (PPOs). The tribunal recently allowed the claim to proceed to a full hearing.

Background

Claim: UK purchasers of digital games (since June 2018; since January 2010 in Scotland) seek compensation for allegedly inflated game and DLC prices caused by Valve/Steam’s dominant position and platform parity obligations.
Market position: Steam is estimated to hold roughly 75–85% of the PC-store market.
Damages sought: Approximately £656 million (plus legal costs).
Wider remedy: Could force substantial structural or policy changes at Steam if plaintiffs succeed.

Procedural stage and ruling

Defendant’s strike-out arguments (rejected by the tribunal):
1. There is no adequate methodology to calculate Valve’s effective revenue share or the consumer harm caused by the 30% commission.
2. No reliable empirical method links PPOs to an abuse of market position.
3. The proposed class includes many minors/children who cannot be identified or shown to have paid.
Tribunal ruling: The strike-out applications were dismissed. The opt-out collective action may proceed to a full Competition Appeals Tribunal hearing. The ruling is procedural — it finds the plaintiffs have a plausible case to be heard but does not decide the merits.

Key legal and evidentiary points

Excessive pricing

Plaintiffs will rely on EU case law tests for “excessive and unfair” pricing.
Approach: Compare Steam’s revenues and costs to show the effect of the 30% commission on prices and margins.
- Example data cited by plaintiffs: leaked 2021 figures (approx. $435M staff costs vs ~$2B commission revenue) to support high-margin claims.
Valve’s counter: Off-platform Steam keys (which do not generate Valve commissions) could distort aggregate pricing calculations.
Tribunal: Accepted plaintiffs’ aggregate methodology for now and allowed further empirical testing at trial.

Platform parity obligations (PPOs)

Central allegation: Valve’s rules prevented developers or other stores from offering lower prices, effectively enforcing market-wide price parity (not limited to Steam-key sales).
Evidence cited: Discovery from related litigation produced emails indicating Valve staff applied parity to non‑Steam-key versions (e.g., DRM‑free or other storefront builds).
Tribunal: Found the plaintiffs’ proposed 37‑game empirical study could produce evidence of real-world effects from PPOs.

Steam keys and redeem rates

Valve’s argument: Distributed-but-unredeemed keys (bundles, giveaways) mean individual harm cannot be calculated reliably.
Tribunal: Held that aggregate harm analysis (consistent with precedent) is appropriate; Valve’s own data suggested Steam keys’ impact is limited relative to on‑platform sales.

Minors and class composition

Valve’s objection: Children without payment records cannot prove harm.
Tribunal: Dismissed the objection and suggested simple remedial wording changes, and recommended adding a lawyer to protect minors’ rights within the class structure.

Broader context and potential consequences

Regulatory landscape: The decision sits alongside mounting global pressure on Valve/Steam — related US antitrust suits (Wolffire, Dark Cat), Polish regulator probes, and EU scrutiny.
Potential remedies:
- Monetary payouts to affected UK purchasers.
- Injunctive relief changing Steam’s policies (e.g., parity rules, commission rates, enforcement practices).
Market effects: Even if Valve reduced commissions without passing savings to consumers, lower platform cuts could improve developer margins, encourage competition, and foster more games/innovation.
Timescale: A full tribunal hearing and possible appeals are likely to take years.
Precedent: Prior legal/regulatory pressure has already led Valve to change features like refund policy, arbitration terms, and checkout license wording.

What happens next

The collective action will proceed to a full Competition Appeals Tribunal hearing.
Plaintiffs will present empirical evidence (including the 37‑game study and Valve data); Valve will have the opportunity to rebut.
No timetable has been set; litigation and appeals are expected to be lengthy.

Presenters / contributors mentioned

Vicky Shotbolt — consumer advocate
Milberg London LLP — law firm representing the proposed class
Proposed Class Representative (PCR) / legal team — unnamed individual(s) acting as class rep
Valve Corporation — defendant
Competition Appeals Tribunal (UK)
Related US suits: Wolffire and Dark Cat
Polish and EU regulators — investigations referenced
Plaude / Plot Notepin S — sponsor/product mentioned in the video
Video narrator/host — unnamed