Valve CEO Behind £656M Steam Cut Lawsuit Says Valve Is Not Cooperating Fairly as UK Court Fight Moves Forward
Valve is heading toward a major legal showdown in the United Kingdom over how Steam’s business model shapes prices and competition, and the class action representative leading the case is escalating the rhetoric. Parent Zone chief executive officer Vicki Shotbolt, who is spearheading a £656M collective action targeting Steam’s commission model, says Valve is clearly not cooperating fairly in the market and argues the platform’s scale gives it too much power over where PC games can realistically succeed.
In a new interview with GamesIndustry Biz, Shotbolt frames the dispute as more than a pricing argument, positioning PC games as a core part of digital culture and claiming that a market this important must operate fairly and not overcharge. She argues Steam’s influence is so large that it creates a practical dependency for developers and publishers, making it difficult for alternative storefronts to compete at meaningful scale, and making Steam’s commission rate a market shaping lever rather than a neutral fee.
The lawsuit itself was cleared to proceed after a UK tribunal decision last month, meaning Valve must now face the claim rather than having it dismissed at an early stage. The case challenges Steam’s standard 30% cut on game and additional content transactions, arguing it is excessive and that Valve’s conduct and contract terms can restrict price competition across PC storefronts.
A key part of Shotbolt’s public messaging is that a courtroom win would not automatically guarantee lower game prices. She acknowledges that developers might not pass savings directly to players, and she emphasizes that outcomes depend on how the wider market responds. In her view, price competition only meaningfully unlocks if the mechanisms that discourage undercutting and platform hopping are weakened, allowing real storefront competition to apply downward pressure.
From an industry lens, this case is one of the most consequential tests yet of how regulators and courts will treat PC storefront dominance. Steam’s scale has historically been justified by a value stack that includes discoverability, community features, distribution infrastructure, updates, and platform tooling. The opposing argument is that when a storefront becomes the default destination for PC releases, its commission and contractual leverage can shift from market standard to market control, and that is exactly what the UK court process is now being asked to examine.
If the claim succeeds, the ripple effects could be significant. Developers could gain more negotiating room and alternative PC storefronts could gain a clearer lane to compete on price and terms. But even in the most consumer friendly scenario, there is no guarantee retail pricing falls, because publishers may choose to retain margin, reinvest into production, or rebalance discounts rather than cut list prices. The real measurable change would be whether viable distribution options expand beyond Steam as the default, and whether commission pressure becomes more elastic across the PC ecosystem.
Do you think Steam’s 30% cut is the price of doing business for the platform features and reach, or do you believe PC gaming needs court driven pressure to make storefront competition real again?
