In a significant development for consumer rights, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted certification for opt-out proceedings against Valve Corporation, the operator of Steam, the leading PC game distribution platform globally. This marks the first certification judgment following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Evans v Barclays.
Details of the Claim
The claim, which could amount to a staggering £656 million, asserts that approximately 14 million consumers have been overcharged for games and additional content on Steam and other platforms due to Valve’s alleged abuse of market dominance. The Class Representative contends that Valve has unlawfully implemented several practices:
- Platform Parity Obligations (PPOs): These restrict publishers from offering better prices or terms through competing distribution channels.
- Anti-steering and Tying Provisions: These prevent users from purchasing additional content through alternative channels.
- Excessive Commission Charges: Valve is accused of imposing unfair commission rates on sales conducted via Steam.
Valve has contested the certification on various grounds, particularly questioning the methodologies proposed for establishing liability and loss related to the PPOs and pricing practices, as well as the definition of the class itself. However, the CAT dismissed these objections and proceeded to certify the claim.
Tribunal’s Considerations
Before arriving at its decision, the Tribunal proactively examined the Class Representative’s funding arrangements, referencing its earlier judgment in Riefa v Amazon. The CAT acknowledged that the circumstances in Riefa were notably unique and emphasized that the observations made in that case should not be misconstrued as a set of rigid legal tests. The Tribunal expressed a cautious approach towards evaluating the commercial terms of the Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) unless they are exceptionally egregious.
On the matter of opt-out certification, the Tribunal concluded that the Evans ruling did not undermine the appropriateness of such certification. It recognized this claim as representative of a large group of consumers who have experienced moderate losses, aligning with the Supreme Court’s description of a ‘paradigm’ case for opt-out certification.
Legal representation for the Class Representative at the CPO hearing was provided by Julian Gregory and Will Perry from Milberg London LLP, while Robert Palmer KC was engaged for earlier stages of the proceedings. The claim is financially supported by Bench Walk Advisors.
