UK lawsuit against Valve given the go-ahead, Steam owner facing up to £656 million in damages

Valve, creator of Steam, now face legal action in the UK as a lawsuit has been given the go-ahead that could result in up to £656 million in damages.

This is not technically some new legal action, it's actually the same one that was started back in 2024 from Vicki Shotbolt, the founder and CEO of Parent Zone - they're noted in the legal documents as Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative Limited ("PCR"), backed by Milberg London LLP. Shotbolt actually set up a private limited company just for this with a steamyouoweus.co.uk website.

As of the latest details from documents submitted January 26th 2026 after a hearing on October 14th 2025, the legal action has now officially been given the go-ahead as a tribunal have now been satisfied that there's enough there to be pursued.

In the unofficial summary of the new judgement prepared by the Registry of the Competition Appeal Tribunal it notes the allegations against Valve as:

1. Imposing Platform Parity Obligations (“PPOs”), that prohibit publishers from selling Products through other distribution channels on better terms than the same Products are available on Steam. The PCR alleges that the PPOs are likely to cause, and have in fact caused, restrictions of competition.
2. Imposing anti-steering provisions to the effect that, if a publisher wants consumers playing its Games distributed on Steam to be able to make in-game purchases, all such purchases must be made using the Steam application programming interface, and therefore Valve’s payment processing service. As a result, the payments are subject to Valve’s commission charges. Such anti-steering provisions leverage Valve’s dominant position in the Game Markets so as to enable it to secure a larger share of the Add-on Content Markets, by preventing or restricting the ability of other distribution channels to supply (including self-supply) Add-on Content for Games distributed on Steam.
3. Imposing excessive commission charges which amount to an unfair price which is then passed on to consumers.

They also note that Valve directly opposed it on these grounds:

1. The PCR had not put forward an adequate methodology for determining Valve’s effective commission charge, or as Valve referred to it the effective revenue share, as the PCR had failed to consider the effects of Steam Keys (the “Effective Commission Charge Issue”).
2. The PCR had not put forward an adequate empirical method for determining the effect of the alleged PPOs (the “PPO Issue”) which related to a wider abuse allegation.
3. The PCR’s proposed class definition was inadequate as there was no workable methodology whereby proposed class members, including a high proportion of minors, can identify themselves as being class members (the “Class Certainty Issue”).

In the full judgement page, it notes this is being done on behalf of "some 14 million UK-based consumers" with "aggregate damages" that are "provisionally estimated at up to £656 million". This is all on an opt-out basis rather than opt-in, meaning anyone this may have effected in the UK is automatically included.

On the note of minors above, this is something Valve argued about, as there wouldn't be enough evidence from minors partly due to Valve taking so little info when you create a Steam account, and it needed to take into account payment cards being used across different accounts (like parents using their card on a child's account). So who is actually included in it (the "Class Definition") was amended to:

“All Persons who, during the Class Period, made one or more payments to purchase (“Purchasers”): (a) PC Games, and/or (b) Add-on Content for PC Games, including subscription payments for PC Games and/or Add-on Content (collectively “Relevant Purchases”).

“Persons” are end-consumers, and do not include resellers or other non-retail customers. Persons include, in particular, people who purchase PC Games and/or Add-on Content for use by themselves or by people they know (such as friends or family members).

“Purchasers” include, for the avoidance of doubt: (a) where the payment was taken from a bank or credit card at the time of purchase (whether through the submission of card details or the use of digital wallet technologies such as Apple Pay, Google Pay or PayPal etc), the person whose account the money was taken from; (b) where the payment was made with pre-loaded funds on a user account (e.g. Steam Wallet, Epic Wallet etc), the user account holder; and (c) where the payment was made using a monetary gift card or voucher, the person who made the payment using that card or voucher.”

So it has been steered more directly to those who actually paid, not the Steam account holder.

We've seen this before, as there's a lawsuit also currently in progress in the USA against Valve on similar grounds. Back in 2024, the lawsuit in the USA was granted class action status but it's all still ongoing.

I've reached out to Valve press for a comment. Will update if they provide a statement.