Editing Valve Corporation (section)

== Legal disputes ==
=== ''Valve Corporation v. Vivendi Universal Games'' ===
Between 2002 and 2005, Valve was involved in a complex legal dispute with its publisher, [[Vivendi Universal Games]] (under Vivendi's brand [[Sierra Entertainment]]). Valve had entered into a publishing agreement with Sierra to release ''Half-Life'' and subsequent games in 1997, with the contract giving Sierra some [[intellectual property]] (IP) rights to Valve's games. After Valve began development of ''Half-Life 2'', it agreed a new contract with Sierra in 2001, removing these rights from Sierra and giving Valve some rights for digital distribution.<ref name="gamespot valve v sierra">{{cite web | url = https://www.gamespot.com/articles/valve-vs-vivendi-universal-dogfight-heats-up-in-us-district-court/1100-6107712/ | title = Valve vs. Vivendi Universal dogfight heats up in US District Court | first = Curt | last = Feldman | date = December 15, 2004 | access-date = December 9, 2020 | work = [[GameSpot]] | archive-date = May 10, 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220510013229/https://www.gamespot.com/articles/valve-vs-vivendi-universal-dogfight-heats-up-in-us-district-court/1100-6107712/ | url-status = live }}</ref> Internally, Valve started work on Steam as a means to digitally distribute these games, and first revealed this project at the March 2002 [[Game Developers Conference]].<ref name="gamespot valve v sierra"/>

By August 2002, Valve had found that Sierra was distributing copies of their games to [[Internet cafe]]s against the terms of their contracts and filed a lawsuit against Sierra and Vivendi. In addition to claims of [[copyright infringement]], Valve asserted that Sierra [[breach of contract|breached contract]] by withholding royalties and delaying the release of ''[[Counter-Strike: Condition Zero]]'' until after the holiday season. Vivendi and Sierra countersued, stating that Valve had misrepresented their position in the revised 2001 contract since they had been working on Steam at that point as a means to circumvent the publishing agreement. Vivendi sought [[intellectual property]] rights to ''Half-Life'' and a ruling preventing Valve from using Steam to distribute ''Half-Life 2''.<ref name="gamespot valve v sierra"/>

On November 29, 2004, Judge [[Thomas Samuel Zilly]] of the [[U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington]] ruled in favor of Valve. The ruling stated that Vivendi Universal and its affiliates (including Sierra) were not authorized to distribute Valve games, either directly or indirectly, through cyber cafés to end users for [[pay-to-play]] activities pursuant to the parties' publishing agreement. In addition, Judge Zilly ruled that Valve could recover copyright damages for infringements without regard to the publishing agreement's limitation of liability clause.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html |first=Curt |last=Feldman |title=Valve vs. Vivendi Universal dogfight heats up in US District Court |work=GameSpot|date=September 20, 2004 |access-date=November 8, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080908022850/http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/09/20/news_6107712.html |archive-date=September 8, 2008}}</ref> Valve posted on the Steam website that the companies had come to a settlement in court on April 29, 2005.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://store.steampowered.com/news/413/ |title=Valve and Vivendi Universal Games Settle Lawsuit |publisher=Valve |date=April 29, 2005 |access-date=November 8, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081015071017/http://store.steampowered.com/news/413/ |archive-date=October 15, 2008}}</ref> [[Electronic Arts]] announced on July 18, 2005, that they would partner with Valve in a multi-year deal to distribute their games, replacing Vivendi Universal.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eagames.com/redesign/editorial.jsp?src=valve_071805 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070216012052/http://www.eagames.com/redesign/editorial.jsp?src=valve_071805 |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 16, 2007 |title=EA and Valve Team Up to Deliver Half Life to Gamers Worldwide |publisher=Electronic Arts Inc |date=July 18, 2005 |access-date=November 8, 2008}}</ref> As a result of the trial, the arbitrator also awarded Valve $2,391,932.<ref name="gamepolitics" />

=== ''Valve Corporation v. Activision Blizzard'' ===
In April 2009, Valve sued [[Activision Blizzard]], which acquired [[Sierra Entertainment]] after a merger with its parent company, [[Vivendi Universal Games]]. Activision had allegedly refused to honor the ''Valve v. Vivendi'' arbitration agreement. Activision had only paid Valve $1,967,796 of the $2,391,932 award, refusing to pay the remaining $424,136, claiming it had overpaid that sum in the past years.<ref name="gamepolitics">{{cite web |url=http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/30/it039s-ugly-valve-sues-activision-activision-threatens-sue-valve |title=It's Ugly: Valve Sues Activision, Activision Threatens to Sue Valve |publisher=gamepolitics.com |date=April 30, 2009 |quote=Against that backdrop, Activision cut Valve a check last week for $1,967,796—the amount handed down by the arbitrator less the disputed $424K. According to Valve's suit, Activision said that it wouldn't pay the rest and if Valve went to court Activision would countersue. Valve has apparently called Activision's bluff and the parties are now once again at odds. |access-date=May 1, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090502205718/http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/30/it039s-ugly-valve-sues-activision-activision-threatens-sue-valve |archive-date=May 2, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20fco%2020100730214 |title=Valve Corporation v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. |date=July 30, 2010 |publisher=United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209002220/http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20fco%2020100730214 |archive-date=February 9, 2015}}</ref>

=== ''Dota'' intellectual property ownership ===
''[[Defense of the Ancients]]'' (DotA) was a landmark [[mod (video gaming)|mod]] first released in 2003 that created the basis of the genre of [[multiplayer online battle arena]] (MOBA). It was originally developed by Kyle Sommer (who goes by the alias ''Eul'') within [[Blizzard Entertainment]]'s ''[[Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos]]'' via its [[Warcraft III World Editor|world editor]], and spawned several similar efforts, notably ''DotA-Allstars''. While there had been several that contributed to ''DotA-Allstars'', the project was managed primarily by [[Steve "Guinsoo" Feak]], and later by "[[IceFrog]]". IceFrog was eventually hired by Valve in 2009, with the rights to the ''DotA'' [[intellectual property]] being sold to Valve the following year. Eul was also hired into Valve by 2010.<ref name="dota ip"/> Valve then subsequently filed [[trademark]]s towards a sequel to ''DotA'', titled ''[[Dota 2]]''. DotA-Allstars, LLC, a group of former contributors to the ''DotA-Allstars'' project, filed an opposing trademark in August 2010 to contest Valve's claim it owned the property rights.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Augustine |first=Josh |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/riot-games-dev-counter-files-dota-trademark/ |title=Riot Games' dev counter-files "DotA" trademark |date=August 17, 2010 |access-date=May 1, 2022|magazine=[[PC Gamer]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130203103306/http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/08/17/riot-games-dev-counter-files-dota-trademark/ |archive-date=February 3, 2013}}</ref>

DotA-Allstars, LLC was eventually acquired by Blizzard to start development of ''Blizzard All-Stars''. Blizzard took over the trademark challenge. The [[United States Patent & Trademark Office]] initially ruled in Valve's favor. By this point, [[Riot Games]] had hired Guinsoo to help develop their own MOBA, ''[[League of Legends]]''. As with IceFrog, Feak transferred his rights to the ''Dota'' property to Riot, who in turn sold those to Blizzard. Blizzard filed a lawsuit against Valve to challenge Valve's ownership, pitting the rights assigned through IceFrog to Guinsoo at odds.<ref>{{cite web |last=Plunkett |first=Luke |url=https://kotaku.com/blizzard-and-valve-go-to-war-over-dota-name-5883938 |title=Blizzard and Valve go to War Over DOTA Name |date=February 10, 2012 |publisher=Kotaku |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211081846/http://kotaku.com/5883938/blizzard-is-suing-valve |archive-date=February 11, 2012|access-date=May 1, 2022}}</ref> The case ''Blizzard Entertainment v. Valve Corporation'' was settled out of court in May 2012; Valve retained the right to use ''Dota'' commercially, while Blizzard reserved the right for fans to use ''Dota'' non-commercially.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Reilly |first=Jim |url=https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/05/11/valve-blizzard-reach-dota-trademark-agreement.aspx |title=Valve, Blizzard Reach DOTA Trademark Agreement |date=May 11, 2012 |magazine=[[Game Informer]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120724090129/http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/05/11/valve-blizzard-reach-dota-trademark-agreement.aspx |archive-date=July 24, 2012}}</ref> Blizzard changed the names of its own projects to remove the ''Dota'' term, and renamed ''Blizzard All-Stars'' as ''[[Heroes of the Storm]]''. Valve's ''Dota 2'' was released in 2013.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://kotaku.com/blizzard-s-diablo-starcraft-wow-crossover-has-a-new-nam-1447238984 |title=Blizzard's Diablo/Starcraft/WoW Crossover Has a New Name |publisher=Kotaku |date=October 17, 2013 |last=Narcisse |first=Evan |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020114040/http://kotaku.com/blizzard-s-diablo-starcraft-wow-crossover-has-a-new-nam-1447238984 |archive-date=October 20, 2013}}</ref>

In 2014, mobile developers Lilith and {{Proper name|uCool}} released their games ''Dota Legends'' and ''Heroes Charge'', respectively. Both were influenced by ''Dota'' and the sequels. In 2017, Valve and Blizzard took joint action against these companies, citing copyright issues related to the ''Dota'' names. {{Proper name|uCool}} argued that the ''Dota'' games were a [[Collective work (US)|collective work]] and could not be copyrighted by anyone in particular, but the presiding judge, [[Charles R. Breyer]], felt that, due to the trio's actions as maintainers of the ''Dota'' mods, they had a rightful copyright claim to this. Separately, Lilith and {{Proper name|uCool}} argued that Eul had, in a forum post from September 2004, assigned an [[Open-source software|open-source copyright license]] to ''Dota'', which would make Valve and Blizzard's copyright claims void. The case was later heard by a jury.<ref name="dota ip">{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/05/does-valve-really-own-dota-a-jury-will-decide/ |title=Does Valve really own Dota? A jury will decide |first=Kyle |last=Orland |date=May 17, 2017 |access-date=May 22, 2017 |work=[[Ars Technica]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170521165016/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/05/does-valve-really-own-dota-a-jury-will-decide/ |archive-date=May 21, 2017}}</ref>

=== ''ACCC v. Valve Corporation'' ===
The [[Australian Competition & Consumer Commission]] (ACCC) announced it was taking action against Valve in 2014. On March 29, 2016, Valve was found guilty of breaching Australian consumer law because:<ref>{{cite news |last=Wilkins |first=Georgia |url=https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/online-games-giant-valve-found-to-have-breached-australian-consumer-law-20160329-gnt2wd.html |title=Online games giant Valve found to have breached Australian consumer law |work=[[Sydney Morning Herald]]|date=March 29, 2016 |access-date=December 3, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160913134130/http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/online-games-giant-valve-found-to-have-breached-australian-consumer-law-20160329-gnt2wd.html |archive-date=September 13, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Pearce |first=Rohan |url=http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/596867/accc-chalks-up-court-win-against-valve-software-guarantee-case/ |title=ACCC chalks up court win against Valve Software |website=[[Computerworld]] |publisher=[[International Data Corporation]] |date=March 29, 2016 |access-date=December 3, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223020623/http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/596867/accc-chalks-up-court-win-against-valve-software-guarantee-case/ |archive-date=December 23, 2016}}</ref>
* Valve claimed consumers were not entitled to a refund for digitally downloaded games purchased from Valve via the Steam website or Steam Client (in any circumstances);
* Valve had excluded statutory guarantees and/or warranties that goods would be of acceptable quality; and
* Valve had restricted or modified statutory guarantees and/or warranties of acceptable quality.

During the prosecution of this case, Valve implemented a refund policy for Steam purchases, but the case still reviewed Valve's actions prior to the onset of the lawsuit. The court overseeing the case sided with the ACCC in assigning a {{AUD|3&nbsp;million|link=yes}} (about {{USD|2.1&nbsp;million}}) fine against Valve in December 2016, as well as requiring Valve to inform Australian consumers of their rights when purchasing games from Steam.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://kotaku.com/australian-court-fines-valve-3-million-over-refund-pol-1790435837 |title=Australian Court Fines Valve $2.1 Million Over Refund Policy |first=Alex |last=Walker |date=December 23, 2016 |access-date=December 25, 2016 |work=[[Kotaku]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161224142156/http://kotaku.com/australian-court-fines-valve-3-million-over-refund-pol-1790435837 |archive-date=December 24, 2016}}</ref> Valve appealed the court's determination that it "engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations about consumer guarantees", as well as seeking to appeal the fine, but the Australian higher courts rejected the appeals in December 2017.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-accc-lawsuit |title=Australian courts say Valve must pay a $3 million fine for "misleading" consumers |first=Ali |last=Jones |date=December 22, 2017 |access-date=December 27, 2017 |work=[[PCGamesN]] |archive-date=December 28, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171228000324/https://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-accc-lawsuit |url-status=live }}</ref> In January 2018, Valve filed for a "special leave" of the court's decision, appealing to the [[High Court of Australia]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ordered-to-pay-3-million-fine-valve-files-another-/1100-6456267/ |title=Ordered To Pay $3 Million Fine, Valve Files Another Appeal In Australia |first=Eddie |last=Makuch |date=January 22, 2018 |access-date=January 22, 2018 |work=[[GameSpot]] |archive-date=January 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180123031353/https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ordered-to-pay-3-million-fine-valve-files-another-/1100-6456267/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The High Court dismissed this claim in April 2018, asserting that Valve still was liable under Australian law since it sold products directly to its citizens.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gamespot.com/articles/valve-loses-appeal-for-3-million-fine-in-australia/1100-6458378/ |title=Valve Loses Appeal For $3 Million Fine In Australia |first=Eddie |last=Makuch |date=April 19, 2018 |access-date=April 19, 2018 |work=[[GameSpot]] |archive-date=April 20, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180420054346/https://www.gamespot.com/articles/valve-loses-appeal-for-3-million-fine-in-australia/1100-6458378/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== ''UFC Que Choisir v. Valve Corporation'' ===
Consumer rights group [[UFC Que Choisir]], based in France, filed a lawsuit against Valve in December 2015, claiming users should be able to resell their software.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hayward |first=Andrew |url=http://www.stuff.tv/news/valve-sued-french-group-over-right-resell-steam-games |title=Valve sued by French group over right to resell Steam games |publisher=[[Stuff (magazine)|Stuff]] |date=December 21, 2015 |access-date=December 3, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009082550/http://www.stuff.tv/news/valve-sued-french-group-over-right-resell-steam-games |archive-date=October 9, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Sayer |first=Peter |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/418837/the-french-are-steamed-about-valves-unfair-game-resale-ban.html |title=Valve slapped with lawsuit over 'unfair' Steam game resale ban |magazine=[[PC World]] |publisher=[[International Data Group]] |date=December 18, 2015 |access-date=May 1, 2022 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161007000922/http://www.pcworld.com/article/3017060/software-games/the-french-are-steamed-about-valves-unfair-game-resale-ban.html |archive-date=October 7, 2016}}</ref> The [[Tribunal de grande instance de Paris|High Court of Paris]] ruled in favor of UFC Que Choisir in September 2019, stating that Valve must allow the resale of Steam games. Valve stated it will appeal the decision.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.polygon.com/2019/9/19/20874384/french-court-steam-valve-used-games-eu-law | title = French court rules that Steam's ban on reselling used games is contrary to European law | first = Colin | last = Campbell | date = September 19, 2019 | access-date = September 19, 2019 | work = [[Polygon (website)|Polygon]] | archive-date = December 19, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191219182402/https://www.polygon.com/2019/9/19/20874384/french-court-steam-valve-used-games-eu-law | url-status = live }}</ref>

=== Skins gambling ===
{{Main|Skin gambling}}
Valve was named as a defendant in two lawsuits in June and July 2016 related to third-party gambling sites that use the Steamworks API to allow betting with the virtual currency of cosmetic weapon replacement textures, better known as "skins", from ''[[Counter-Strike: Global Offensive]]'', which through these sites can be converted from or to real-world money. Both suits assert Valve aiding in underaged [[gambling]].<ref name="polygon gambling overview">{{cite web |url=http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/11/12129136/counter-strike-global-offensive-cs-go-skins-explainer |title=How do Counter-Strike: Global Offensive skins work? |first=Samit |last=Sarkar |date=July 11, 2016 |access-date=July 11, 2016 |work=[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160711145127/http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/11/12129136/counter-strike-global-offensive-cs-go-skins-explainer |archive-date=July 11, 2016}}</ref> Valve subsequently stated it has no commercial ties with these sites, and that it would demand these sites cease their use of the Steamworks API as they violate the authorized use policies.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/valve-says-it-will-start-cracking-down-on-third-party-gambling-sites |title=Valve says it will start cracking down on third-party gambling sites |first=Bryant |last=Francis |date=July 13, 2016 |access-date=May 1, 2022 |work=Game Developer |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160715153648/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/277025/Valve_says_it_will_start_cracking_down_on_thirdparty_gambling_sites.php |archive-date=July 15, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://store.steampowered.com/news/22883/ |title=News – In-Game Item Trading Update |website=Steam Store |access-date=July 15, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160715061050/http://store.steampowered.com/news/22883/ |archive-date=July 15, 2016}}</ref> In October 2016, the Washington State Gambling Commission required Valve to stop the use of virtual skins for gambling on Steam, stating they would face legal repercussions if they failed to co-operate.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/washington-state-authority-orders-valve-to-stop-allowing-i-cs-go-i-skin-gambling |title=Washington state authority orders Valve to stop allowing CS:GO skin gambling |first=Alissa |last=McAloon |date=October 5, 2016 |access-date=May 1, 2022|work=[[Gamasutra]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006151941/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/282773/Washington_state_authority_orders_Valve_to_stop_allowing_CSGO_skin_gambling.php |archive-date=October 6, 2016}}</ref> On October 17, 2016, Valve sent a letter to the Washington State Gambling Commission stating that they had "no business relationship with such gambling sites", asserting that they come into existence, operate, and go out of existence without their knowledge and consent, adding that they were not aware of any such law that Steam or any of their games were violating.<ref>{{cite web |last=Grosso |first=Robert |url=https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/update-valve-to-respond-to-washington-gambling-commission-after-given-deadline |title=[Update] Valve to Respond to Washington Gambling Commission After Given Deadline |website=techraptor.net |date=October 17, 2016 |access-date=May 1, 2022 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161114001643/https://techraptor.net/content/valve-respond-washington-gambling-commission-given-deadline |archive-date=November 14, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-misses-deadline-to-respond-to-washington-state-gambling-regulator-but-says-its-coming-soon/ |first=Andy |last=Chalk |title=Valve denies wrongdoing in skin gambling legal rumblings: 'no factual or legal support for these accusations' |magazine=PC Gamer |date=October 18, 2016 |access-date=October 18, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018232817/http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-misses-deadline-to-respond-to-washington-state-gambling-regulator-but-says-its-coming-soon/ |archive-date=October 18, 2016}}</ref>

=== Anti-competitive practices ===
In February 2017, the [[European Commission]] began investigating Valve and five other publishers—[[Bandai Namco Entertainment]], [[Capcom]], [[Focus Home Interactive]], [[Koch Media]] and [[ZeniMax Media]]—for anti-competitive practices, specifically the use of geo-blocking through the Steam storefront and Steam product keys to prevent access to software to citizens of certain countries. Such practices would be against the [[Digital Single Market]] initiative by the European Union.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-02-02-valve-under-investigation-by-european-commission-for-steam-geo-blocking |title=Valve under investigation by European Commission for Steam geo-blocking |first=Matthew |last=Handrahan |date=February 2, 2017 |access-date=February 2, 2017 |work=[[GamesIndustry.biz]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202184925/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-02-02-valve-under-investigation-by-european-commission-for-steam-geo-blocking |archive-date=February 2, 2017}}</ref> While the other five companies named are in stages of settling with the EU as of August 2019, Valve has stated it plans to fight the charges, asserting that geo-blocking affects less than 3% of its games, and that it had turned off such geo-blocking within the EU in 2015.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-antitrust-videogames-exclusive/exclusive-valve-to-fight-eu-antitrust-charges-five-videogame-publishers-to-settle-sources-idUSKCN1VJ26R | title = Exclusive: Valve to fight EU antitrust charges, five videogame publishers to settle: sources | first = Foo Yun | last = Chee | date = August 29, 2019 | access-date = August 29, 2019 | publisher = [[Reuters]] | archive-date = August 29, 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190829213459/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-antitrust-videogames-exclusive/exclusive-valve-to-fight-eu-antitrust-charges-five-videogame-publishers-to-settle-sources-idUSKCN1VJ26R | url-status = live }}</ref>

In January 2021, five gamers filed a proposed class-action [[Competition law|antitrust]] lawsuit in California against Valve, alleging that the company "abuses the Steam platform's market power" by requiring game developers and publishers to enter into a '[[Most favoured nation|most favored nation]]' agreement with Valve, restricting their ability to sell games for less on other platforms and thereby preventing price competition.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gardner |first=Eriq |date=2021-01-28 |title=Popular Gaming Platform Accused of Abusing Market Power Through Contracts |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/popular-gaming-platform-accused-of-abusing-market-power-through-contracts-4124057/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20231009231803/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/popular-gaming-platform-accused-of-abusing-market-power-through-contracts-4124057/ |archive-date=2023-10-09 |access-date=2024-06-17 |website=[[The Hollywood Reporter]] |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Yin-Poole |first=Wesley |date=2021-01-30 |title=Lawsuit accuses Valve of abusing Steam market power to prevent price competition |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/new-lawsuit-accuses-valve-of-abusing-steam-market-power-to-prevent-price-competition |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240614075316/https://www.eurogamer.net/new-lawsuit-accuses-valve-of-abusing-steam-market-power-to-prevent-price-competition |archive-date=2024-06-14 |access-date=2024-06-17 |work=[[Eurogamer]] |language=en}}</ref>

In May 2021, [[Wolfire Games]] filed a proposed class-action antitrust lawsuit against Valve, alleging that the company exerts [[monopoly]] power over the PC gaming market and uses its "gatekeeper role" to "wield extreme power over publishers of PC Desktop Games" and to extract "an extraordinarily high cut from nearly every sale that passes through its store."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=2021-04-30 |title=Humble Bundle creator brings antitrust lawsuit against Valve over Steam |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/humble-bundle-creator-brings-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-over-steam/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240314090728/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/04/humble-bundle-creator-brings-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-over-steam/ |archive-date=2024-03-14 |access-date=2024-06-17 |website=[[Ars Technica]] |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hollister |first=Sean |date=2021-05-01 |title=As Epic v. Apple approaches the courtroom, Valve is getting sued over Steam too |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/1/22413196/valve-steam-lawsuit-wolfire-games-humble-bundle-app-store-cut-epic-apple |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240411235319/https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/1/22413196/valve-steam-lawsuit-wolfire-games-humble-bundle-app-store-cut-epic-apple |archive-date=2024-04-11 |access-date=2024-06-17 |website=[[The Verge]] |language=en}}</ref> Although a motion by Valve to dismiss the original lawsuit was granted in November 2021, Wolfire was allowed to file a revised complaint, and in May 2022 US District Court Judge [[John C. Coughenour]] ruled that that lawsuit could proceed, finding that Wolfire's allegations were "sufficient to plausibly allege unlawful conduct."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zwiezen |first=Zack |date=2022-05-11 |title=Lawsuit Claiming Steam Gives Valve Too Much Power Is Moving Forward After All |url=https://kotaku.com/valve-steam-antitrust-lawsuit-wolfire-games-us-court-1848912204 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240613143959/https://kotaku.com/valve-steam-antitrust-lawsuit-wolfire-games-us-court-1848912204 |archive-date=2024-06-13 |access-date=2024-06-17 |website=[[Kotaku]] |language=en}}</ref> Wolfire's suit was consolidated with a similar lawsuit from another developer. In November 2024, it was affirmed into a class-action lawsuit, with any developer affected by Valve's revenue cut able to be part of the class.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.gamesindustry.biz/wolfire-and-dark-catts-antitrust-lawsuit-against-valve-granted-class-action-status | title = Wolfire and Dark Catt's antitrust lawsuit against Valve granted class action status | first = James | last = Batchelor | date = November 28, 2024 | accessdate = November 28, 2024 | work = [[GamesIndustry.biz]] }}</ref>

In June 2024, Vicki Shotbolt, a children's digital rights activist, filed a lawsuit with the [[Competition Appeal Tribunal]] in the UK that accuses Valve of "rigging the market" for PC games, alleging that Valve used its market dominance to overcharge 14 million people in the UK and seeking damages of £22 to £44 per affected customer, or £656 million in total.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rahman-Jones |first=Imran |date=2024-06-12 |title=Steam owner Valve accused of ripping off 14m UK gamers |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240615021327/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo |archive-date=2024-06-15 |access-date=2024-06-17 |website=[[BBC News]] |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Kan |first=Michael |date=2024-06-13 |title=$837 Million Lawsuit Accuses Valve's Steam of Overcharging PC Gamers |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/837-million-lawsuit-accuses-valves-steam-of-overcharging-pc-gamers |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240614051956/https://www.pcmag.com/news/837-million-lawsuit-accuses-valves-steam-of-overcharging-pc-gamers |archive-date=2024-06-14 |access-date=2024-06-17 |website=[[PCMag]] |language=en}}</ref>

===''Valve Corporation v. Zaiger, LLC''===
In 2023, Valve sued a law firm, Zaiger, alleging that it attempted to extort settlements from Valve by threatening to bring numerous antitrust arbitration cases on behalf of Steam customers, a tactic referred to as "mass arbitration". Valve also brought suit against a litigation financier for Zaiger over the funding of a social media campaign to recruit Steam users as clients. Valve alleged that they improperly interfered with its contracts with Steam customers and abused the arbitration process by signing up clients with the intent of obtaining settlements slightly lower than the cost of arbitration filing fees, rather than arbitrating their claims. Valve said that it was targeted due to the terms of the Steam Subscriber Agreement, in which Valve would be responsible for the fees and costs associated with arbitration. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice by the [[US District Court for the Western District of Washington]] in 2024 due to [[personal jurisdiction]] issues.<ref name = "arsSep27">{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/steam-doesnt-want-to-pay-arbitration-fees-tells-gamers-to-sue-instead/|title=Steam doesn't want to pay arbitration fees, tells gamers to sue instead|website=Ars Technica|date=September 27, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/column-mass-arbitration-target-valve-accuses-law-firm-litigation-funder-2023-12-08/|title=Mass arbitration target Valve accuses law firm, litigation funder of 'extortion'|website=Reuters|date=December 8, 2023}}</ref>

In September 2024, Valve changed its Steam Subscriber Agreement to require disputes to proceed in court, with no option of arbitration.<ref name = "arsSep27"/>