Steam Antitrust Claim coming?

[Uberhaus]

Will the litigation be serious enough to badly damage or even bankrupt Steam? 
I am guessing Steam is wealthy and profitable enough to survive any lawsuit, but really I have no clue and am selfishly panicking about my games collection. 
If only we knew a lawyer that would pro bono defend my erm, our games collections.

[al_infierno]

Will the litigation be serious enough to badly damage or even bankrupt Steam? 

Absolutely, 110% no.  I bet Steam makes enough money to make Elon Musk blush.

[FarAway Sooner]

Will the litigation be serious enough to badly damage or even bankrupt Steam? 

Absolutely, 110% no.  I bet Steam makes enough money to make Elon Musk blush.

Not quite.  I have it from very reliable sources.  This is about the only time in my Internet career where I'll ever say, "I know but I can't tell you why."  But I know, and I can't tell you why.

They have A TON of money!  Just not enough to make Elon blush...

[Rayfer]

Steam has saved me big bucks as I only buy the deeply discounted sales. Why would I sue?

+1 same here.  I rarely ever buy a full price, new release game.

[Jarhead0331]

If I understand the claim properly, the fact that you've paid less for games on steam is precisely the problem. Steam, according to the theory of the case, forces developers into contracts that requires the developer to permit steam to list the game at a lower price on its platform, while forcing the developer to sell everywhere else at higher prices. This is "anticompetitive" conduct that is purportedly unfair and unlawful in that Steam uses its market dominance to eliminate price competition.

[ArizonaTank]

If I understand the claim properly, the fact that you've paid less for games on steam is precisely the problem. Steam, according to the theory of the case, forces developers into contracts that requires the developer to permit steam to list the game at a lower price on its platform, while forcing the developer to sell everywhere else at higher prices. This is "anticompetitive" conduct that is purportedly unfair and unlawful in that Steam uses its market dominance to eliminate price competition.

I can see game developers and publishers being interested in this. But not really certain how regular Steam account holders have been harmed.

Now if Steam were to suddenly tell account holders that Steam was going to start charging a subscription to have access to their accounts...  "CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE LAWYERS OF WAR!!!!"

[bobarossa]

Now if Steam were to suddenly tell account holders that Steam was going to start charging a subscription to have access to their accounts...  "CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE LAWYERS OF WAR!!!!"

This is exactly why I don't buy anything that costs more than $15 on Steam.  I just expect it to switch to subscription some day.

[Jarhead0331]

If I understand the claim properly, the fact that you've paid less for games on steam is precisely the problem. Steam, according to the theory of the case, forces developers into contracts that requires the developer to permit steam to list the game at a lower price on its platform, while forcing the developer to sell everywhere else at higher prices. This is "anticompetitive" conduct that is purportedly unfair and unlawful in that Steam uses its market dominance to eliminate price competition.

I can see game developers and publishers being interested in this. But not really certain how regular Steam account holders have been harmed.

Now if Steam were to suddenly tell account holders that Steam was going to start charging a subscription to have access to their accounts...  "CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE LAWYERS OF WAR!!!!"

I suppose the argument would be that despite offering a lower price for a game on Steam, the purchaser may have been harmed since the prices elsewhere were artificially made higher due to the contracts Steam imposed on developers. Thus, had the market been open and not unfairly influenced by Steam, the customer may have been able to pay even less.  This kind of unfair competition could subject Steam to "treble damages", as well. So, if some fact finder was to determine that the actual damage to a plaintiff was $100, and that due to the violation of the law, treble damages were appropriate, the actual award would be $300.

I think establishing liability will be the easy part, while establishing damages may be much more speculative.

[Sir Slash]

Maybe there's a way for Steam to come-out a winner in all this. The newest offering on Steam, "Class-Action Lawyer Simulator". Priced below competition of course.  ::)

[Jarhead0331]

I've learned that this is actually not a class action lawsuit. Apparently, the law firm pursuing this claim attempted to certify a class, but the license agreement Steam imposes prohibits this and requires arbitration. Steam apparently took steps to enforce the arbitration agreement, which were successful. I learned this after signing up to join the suit (more out of curiosity than expectation of recovery) and was asked to sign a retainer agreement with the law firm, as well as a funding agreement. I found this to be unusual and inquired as to what was different here. The response clued me in.

I'm not sure I'm prepared to execute the required agreements.

[Senex]

If I understand the claim properly, the fact that you've paid less for games on steam is precisely the problem. Steam, according to the theory of the case, forces developers into contracts that requires the developer to permit steam to list the game at a lower price on its platform, while forcing the developer to sell everywhere else at higher prices. This is "anticompetitive" conduct that is purportedly unfair and unlawful in that Steam uses its market dominance to eliminate price competition.

Steam is more or less the Standard Oil of gaming.

[solops]

I've learned that this is actually not a class action lawsuit. Apparently, the law firm pursuing this claim attempted to certify a class, but the license agreement Steam imposes prohibits this and requires arbitration. Steam apparently took steps to enforce the arbitration agreement, which were successful. I learned this after signing up to join the suit (more out of curiosity than expectation of recovery) and was asked to sign a retainer agreement with the law firm, as well as a funding agreement. I found this to be unusual and inquired as to what was different here. The response clued me in.

I'm not sure I'm prepared to execute the required agreements.

"It's a trap!"--- Adm. Ackbar

[FarAway Sooner]

Lawyers in cases that are handled on contingency generally take a third of whatever they recover. If they recover $1,000,000, they will generally take $333,333,333, as their fee, not including disbursements.

I think it's silly (and disrespectful) to make lawyer jokes in threads like this, but the math cited here either totally missed everybody or was one heck of a Freudian slip!

 

[Jarhead0331]

Lawyers in cases that are handled on contingency generally take a third of whatever they recover. If they recover $1,000,000, they will generally take $333,333,333, as their fee, not including disbursements.

I think it's silly (and disrespectful) to make lawyer jokes in threads like this, but the math cited here either totally missed everybody or was one heck of a Freudian slip!

 

Wow. Yeah. What's a few extra threes? 

[ArizonaTank]

I don't know if this is the same suit or not...seems like a different group of lawyers.

This particular notice has filled up my FB feed in the past week.

https://get.steamrefund.com/?agency=agencybell&utm_source=facebook&campaignid=23852747751370234&campaignname=%282023-02-12%29+ST+MAS%3A+Steam+Refund+-+Stage+1+Test+%28LALs%29&adgroupid=23852747823450234&adgroupname=AS+49+abc+-+LAL+1-5%25+Signed+%7C+18%2B+M%2FF+%7C+Signed+Retainer&creativeid=23852747823670234&creativename=0021+c&placement=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&network=fb&fbclid=IwAR0Pau1QVvEoW2CzhVKT_bOcMgV0mpQw9n8QhkAQ46Ig6jmPYSl-wOtkCZA

Anyway, I am not really comfortable giving them the amount of information they are asking for.