The antitrust suit against Steam has now been reclassified as a class-action lawsuit, which could have major repercussions on Valve

The class action lawsuit that Wolfire Games filed against Valve in 2022 is now certified as a mass action. This could be a major headache for Valve. The action will no longer be limited to Wolfire Games (and Dark Catt Studios who filed a separate lawsuit in 2021), but will now cover anyone who has sold games on Steam after 2017.

In April 2021, Overgrowth developer Wolfire filed a lawsuit against Valve. Wolfire alleged that Valve used Steam's dominance on the PC gaming market to suppress competition and extract a disproportionately high cut from sales made through its store. The case was dismissed by Valve in November 2021, but Wolfire had 30 days to amend its complaint and resubmit it. It did so, bringing back the case in 2022. In July of the same year, Wolfire's lawsuit was combined with an antitrust suit filed by Dark Catt.

The lawsuit has been fought over by various legal battles, but the latest decision is noteworthy because it expands the action to cover, well, everyone. The ruling (via GamesIndustry), certifies the class as: "all persons or organizations who, directly or via an agent, paid Valve a commission in connection with the use or sale of a Steam platform game on or after January 28, 2017 and continuing until the effects are eliminated (the Class Period) and where either (1) they were based in the United States or its territories, or (2) the game purchased or acquired by United States-based consumers during the Class Period."

The "commission", which is Valve's cut of sales made through Steam (which starts at 30% but drops to 20% with increasing sales), would be Valve. Valve defended this percentage as "industry-standard" when Wolfire's suit was first filed. But that's not the case anymore: Microsoft and Epic Games Store both take a mere 12% of sales through their respective stores.

Valve may be on the hook for large compensation payments if Wolfire or Dark Catt ultimately prevail. This could be enough to spark some new thinking about Steam's revenue sharing policies.

Valve suffered another setback in the ruling when the judge denied Valve's request to exclude Dr. Steven Schwartz as an expert witness, who was called by the plaintiffs. The ruling states that Dr. Schwartz's methods were reliable and within the norms of admissibility, while Valve's objections to his inclusion "go more towards the weight of evidence than admissibility."

I've contacted Valve and Wolfire to ask for their comments on the ruling. I will update this post if I get a response.