Steam’s UK £656m lawsuit explained: what Valve is accused of and why it matters

/ Technology / By

Valve is heading towards a major UK courtroom fight over how much PC gamers pay on Steam — and, more importantly, why they pay it. A £656m collective legal action has been cleared to proceed, accusing the company of using its dominant position to keep prices higher than they should be and to “lock in” players once they’ve started buying through Steam.

This isn’t a case about whether games are “worth it”. It’s a case about market power: what happens when one storefront becomes the default gateway for a whole ecosystem, and the rules of that gateway start to look less like competition and more like control.

What the UK lawsuit actually alleges

The claim has been brought by digital rights campaigner Vicki Shotbolt, who filed the case in 2024 on behalf of as many as 14 million Steam users across the UK. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in London has ruled the case can continue — a key procedural step that effectively says the claim is sufficiently plausible and suitably structured to move towards a full hearing.

At the heart of the allegation is a familiar competition-law theory: abuse of dominance.

According to the claim, Steam’s position as the world’s largest PC game distribution platform gives Valve leverage over both sides of the market:

  • Publishers and developers, who want access to Steam’s huge audience.
  • Players, who want access to the games, updates, add-ons, and social features that increasingly live inside Steam.

The lawsuit argues Valve “forces” publishers into restrictive terms that prevent them from offering their titles earlier or cheaper on rival platforms. If that’s true, it would matter because price competition between stores is one of the few mechanisms that can pull down game prices over time.

The claim also says that once a player buys a game on Steam, Valve effectively locks them into Steam for additional content — because buying expansions, downloadable content (DLC), and other add-ons is channelled through the Steam platform. That lock-in dynamic can reduce a player’s ability to “vote with their feet” when pricing feels unfair.

Why the 30% commission matters

The lawsuit argues that Valve can charge an “excessive commission of up to 30%”. In storefront economics, the platform’s cut is a big deal because it shapes what publishers can do with pricing.

A simplified way to think about it:

  • The platform takes a cut.
  • The publisher wants to hit a revenue target.
  • The customer sees the final price.

When the cut is large, publishers often respond by:

  • Keeping prices higher for longer (especially for popular titles).
  • Being more cautious with discounts.
  • Pushing in-game monetisation (where margins can be better).

The argument in the UK case is not merely that “30% is too high in principle”, but that a dominant platform can sustain a high commission because publishers can’t realistically walk away — and because players are already there.

It’s worth noting that the claim concerns PC games and add-on content purchased via Steam or other platforms since 2018. That timeframe matters because it defines who would potentially be included and what purchases might be counted.

Collective actions: why this case can represent millions of people

This lawsuit is structured as a collective action claim. That’s a special kind of legal mechanism where one representative brings a case on behalf of a larger group. The logic is straightforward: if each person’s potential loss is relatively small (a few pounds here and there across multiple purchases), most people will never sue individually.

But collectively, those small amounts can add up to a large sum — in this case, the headline figure attached to the claim is £656m.

The case is backed by Milberg London LLP, a firm known for group action cases. That backing matters because competition cases are expensive: you need expert economic evidence, market analysis, and extensive disclosure battles.

Valve argued the case should not be certified to proceed towards trial, but the tribunal ruling has allowed it to continue.

Why Steam is such a powerful “default” platform

Steam isn’t just a checkout page. Over two decades it has become infrastructure.

Valve began as a game developer (known for titles like Half-Life), but launched Steam in 2003. Since then, Steam has accumulated a bundle of features that make switching harder:

  • Your library: hundreds of purchases tied to your account.
  • Updates and patching: games stay current through Steam.
  • Friends lists and community features: social gravity keeps people in one place.
  • Achievements, cloud saves, workshop mods: extra value that doesn’t travel cleanly.

The BBC report cites data from VG Insights indicating that over 19,000 games were released on Steam in 2025, generating $11.7bn (£8.6bn) in revenue.

Those numbers illustrate why Steam is attractive to developers — but they also underline the core competition concern: when one platform is that large, it can influence norms across an industry.

Lock-in isn’t always malicious — but it changes the bargaining power

A key concept behind the claim is “lock-in”. In technology markets, lock-in doesn’t require a contract. It can be the result of accumulated convenience.

Once you’ve built up a Steam library, the “cost” of moving is not just money — it’s fragmentation:

  • You might have to manage multiple launchers.
  • Your friend network might not move.
  • Your add-ons, mods, or saves might not transfer.

If the claim is right that Steam’s rules restrict publishers from offering lower prices elsewhere, then lock-in becomes more than a personal preference — it becomes part of a market structure that can keep prices elevated.

On the flip side, platforms will argue that standardisation is what makes the PC ecosystem usable. Steam provides a stable distribution method, fraud prevention, refunds infrastructure, and global reach. The difficult policy question is: when does “platform convenience” cross into anti-competitive constraint?

What this could mean for game publishers and rival stores

If the case eventually succeeds, the implications could extend beyond compensation.

Competition law remedies can be messy, but the broad directions often include:

  • Changes to platform terms (what publishers are allowed to do on other stores).
  • Requirements around pricing parity clauses (if such clauses are found to exist or be restrictive).
  • Pressure on commissions (directly or indirectly through increased competition).

Rival PC storefronts — whether run by large tech companies or smaller publishers — tend to compete through:

  • Lower platform fees.
  • Timed exclusives.
  • Discounting or giveaways.

But those tactics only work if publishers can freely set different prices and release plans across platforms. That’s why the allegation about restrictive terms is central.

Hardware moves: Steam Deck and the “Steam Machine” idea

Valve has also expanded beyond software.

The BBC notes that Valve released the Steam Deck in 2022, a handheld gaming computer designed to play Steam games on the go. Hardware can deepen a platform ecosystem because it makes Steam not just a store, but the default operating environment.

The report also says Valve has recently announced it is releasing a new console positioned as a rival to Nintendo, Xbox and PlayStation in the Steam Machine — designed to let gamers play PC games on their TV.

Whether that device succeeds commercially or not, the direction is clear: Valve is pushing to make Steam a living-room platform as well as a desktop one. As platforms expand across devices, competition questions become more urgent because lock-in becomes multi-surface.

What happens next in the UK case

The tribunal’s decision means the lawsuit survives an early gatekeeping stage. That does not mean Valve has “lost”. It means the case is now on a track where evidence and arguments can be tested more fully.

Next steps typically include:

  • Detailed disclosure and expert economic analysis.
  • Arguments over how the “class” of affected users is defined.
  • Eventually, a substantive hearing on whether Valve’s conduct amounts to an abuse of dominance and whether it caused higher prices.

There is also a separate consumer action in the US, filed in August 2024, which suggests scrutiny of Steam’s business model is not confined to one jurisdiction.

Bottom line

Steam’s dominance has been built on two decades of distribution, community, and convenience — but the same forces that make it a great platform can also make competition weaker. The UK’s £656m collective action will test whether Valve’s rules and commissions are simply the cost of running a trusted marketplace, or whether they have crossed the line into keeping prices artificially high for millions of players.

Sources

n English