The Claim
The claim has been brought against Valve Corporation, the company that owns and operates Steam (its digital distribution platform), on behalf of UK consumers. It alleges that Valve used anti-competitive tactics to block price competition, leading to higher prices for PC games and add-on content on Steam and anti-competitive behaviour in the PC gaming market.
The claim alleges that Valve holds a dominant position in the PC gaming market – and that it may have used this position in ways that violate UK competition law. Under UK law, companies are prohibited from abusing a dominant market position.
This claim seeks compensation for those who we say have paid too much for PC games and add-on content. This claim does not want to, and is not about, shutting down Steam or restricting gamer access to the platform in any way.
The claim seeks to address Valve’s anticompetitive behaviour and to ensure that it does not operate Steam in a way that is detrimental to the consumer. We understand the importance of gaming and how widely it is enjoyed: this means it is important that gamers are treated fairly by large corporations who hold dominant positions.
Companies, such as Valve, who hold a dominant position in a market are not allowed to charge excessive or anti-competitive prices. These companies also cannot impose other unfair trading conditions that prevent or hinder others from competing with them.
The claim alleges that Valve has been operating anti-competitively and as a result, has reduced competition in the PC games market, including by restricting competitors from successfully entering the gaming space and by controlling pricing in the digital gaming industry. One result of this behaviour is that consumers are paying too much for PC games and in-game content and have lesser PC Game platform alternatives.
But Steam’s prices appear to be the lowest?
Steam can offer the lowest prices because of the anti-competitive price restrictions that Valve often imposes on game developers and producers (the Price Parity Obligations). This means a publisher or developer would not be able to list a game on another platform as well as Steam, unless the prices offered on Steam is the same or lower. This applies to games on all other distribution stores (including online and physical stores) not just those distributed by Steam Keys. This allows Valve to maintain the monopoly position it has for PC Games as there is not real incentive for gamers to go elsewhere where a game may be cheaper (which would then in turn enable those other platforms to improve).
It is also not possible to offer add-on content on other distribution platforms for cheaper or at an earlier time: this limits the ability of rivals to compete on price and enables Valve to charge the consumer higher prices in the absence of competition. The claim argues that the add-on content is a separate product, and that through the price restrictions and inability to purchase add-on content from another distribution platform or the developer itself Valve has illegally tied these products and limited consumer choice. Consumers must then purchase via Steam and pay its commission charge.
In the UK, dominant companies are not allowed to charge excessive prices. The claim argues that Valve’s commission rate of up to 30% is excessive given: competitors lower commission rates; the way the platform operates for the consumer; and the high level of profit that Valve is making absent a viable competitor (which its behaviour directly restricts as developers are not permitted to list games at lower prices on competing platforms). This unfair commission charge is paid for by the consumer.
