VALVE FACES $840 MILLION STEAM LAWSUIT IN UK COURT

[RANGER]

The news says:
"In the United Kingdom, it has been revealed that Valve is facing a £656 million ($840 million) lawsuit, with accusations surfacing that the tech titan is using Steam to ‘take advantage of UK gamers’. At the heart of the suit is the claim that Valve has been ‘rigging the market’ for years, shutting out competition and holding a monopoly over the PC gaming market."

I, for one, appreciate what Steam is offering and I like them holding a monopoly over the PC gaming market. Why would I have to use 10 different platforms for the games I want to play?

We need to defend Steam at all costs; Epic Games offers hundreds of thousands of dollars to game developers just to make them release their game on Epic Games only. I have never heard of Steam doing that. Competition is good and all, but I feel like it is good for gamers to have Steam as we do today. It is like saying YouTube holds a monopoly over Dailymotion; the reason you use YouTube is because it is simply better than its alternatives. It applies the same with Steam too; Steam is far more sophisticated than any of its alternatives.

I love Steam

[Ben Lubar]

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Pretty much all your arguments on this topic have been either misleading or proven to be false.

A misreading of a legal proceeding is not "proof".

You claim that Valve changed their policies in 2017-2018 because they lost a court case against Australia?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150602175459/https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds

No, they did not do that.

[Shady Knights]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

It only covered 2 aspects, for the entire trial, in regards to refunds.

It's very clear it is about refunds. I said it was about refunds multiple times in my post. You are only seeing what you want to see at this point.

So even the source information, from the ACCC is not legitimate AND you are totally got it all right and everyone should listen to you despite the ACCC's own media release saying the opposite of what you are suggesting.

"The refund policy had already changed 2 years before hand, and that was due to the EU, not the AAAC lol..." < Valve updated their refund policy in June 2015, the ACCC case was for refunds between 2014-2011, with the case concluding at the end of 2017. The fact that Valve changed the refund policy in 2015 had no bearing at all on the case with ACCC because it was about the policy from 2014 and earlier.

[Shady Knights]

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Pretty much all your arguments on this topic have been either misleading or proven to be false.

A misreading of a legal proceeding is not "proof".

You claim that Valve changed their policies in 2017-2018 because they lost a court case against Australia?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150602175459/https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds

No, they did not do that.

The court case with Australian proceeded in 2014. Valve changed it's refund policies in June 2015.

The changes that they made in 2015 were compliant with Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC has not taken Valve to court on their refund policy from 2015 onwards, it took them to court on their refund policy post 2014.

Maybe they changed it for other reasons in 2015.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

It only covered 2 aspects, for the entire trial, in regards to refunds.

It's very clear it is about refunds. I said it was about refunds multiple times in my post. You are only seeing what you want to see at this point.

So even the source information, from the ACCC is not legitimate AND you are totally got it all right and everyone should listen to you despite the ACCC's own media release saying the opposite of what you are suggesting.

"The refund policy had already changed 2 years before hand, and that was due to the EU, not the AAAC lol..." < Valve updated their refund policy in June 2015, the ACCC case was for refunds between 2014-2011, with the case concluding at the end of 2017. The fact that Valve changed the refund policy in 2015 had no bearing at all on the case with ACCC.

You literally quoted from the document. "The SSA and 2 aspects of the Refund Policy."

How far you going to reach? Two... Dos, Ni... Out of all the topics covered in the refund policy, it was 2 aspects. Where as they tore apart the entire SSA in several points.

And the case lasted far past 2015. Why they only had to change the wording of their SSA and were required to post Australian Consumer Rights.

Even your ACCC sources, which are NOT relevant to this thread AT ALL. Says they started in 2014. And the judgement came to an end and was issued in 2016.

[Shady Knights]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

How far you going to reach? Two... Dos, Ni... Out of all the topics covered in the refund policy, it was 2 aspects. Where as they tore apart the entire SSA in several points.

And the case lasted far past 2015. Why they only had to change the wording of their SSA and were required to post Australian Consumer Rights.

Not reaching far at all.

The whole point of the case was about refunds. The end results of the case were about refunds.

The press release is about refunds.


Why do you think the ACCC, a consumer rights champion got involved. What other consumer rights were they arguing about with Valve if it wasn't about refunds?

Why do you think ACCC submitted 9 representations (interactions with Steam) discussing refunds?


You are failing to understand the full meaning of the conclusion, and when you get a summary like the media release, it doesn't agree with your narrative and you say it's wrong instead of asking yourself how come I am coming to a different conclusion.

[Ben Lubar]

Please stop trying to derail the thread with page after page of nonsense about a completely unrelated court case.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

How far you going to reach? Two... Dos, Ni... Out of all the topics covered in the refund policy, it was 2 aspects. Where as they tore apart the entire SSA in several points.

And the case lasted far past 2015. Why they only had to change the wording of their SSA and were required to post Australian Consumer Rights.

Not reaching far at all.

The whole point of the case was about refunds. The end results of the case were about refunds.

The press release is about refunds.


Why do you think the ACCC, a consumer rights champion got involved. What other consumer rights were they arguing about with Valve if it wasn't about refunds?

Why do you think ACCC submitted 9 representations (interactions with Steam) discussing refunds?


You are failing to understand the full meaning of the conclusion, and when you get a summary like the media release, it doesn't agree with your narrative and you say it's wrong instead of asking yourself how come I am coming to a different conclusion.

They submitted and only 2 were held accountable. The rest, that you claimed to read, was what Valve posted in their SSA.

I give up, you're trolling at this point. Oh, and the guy who was denied their refund in the documents? Was still denied.

[Shady Knights]

Originally posted by Komarimaru:

Oh, and the guy who was denied their refund in the documents? Was still denied.

Valve were required to have a ticketing solution available where Australian's needed to lodge their refund requests for a period of time where they could then be processed by Valve.

Purchases had to be between 2014-2011 and they needed to identify themselves as Australian customers (obviously).

So I have no idea if it was still denied, if that person submitted their claim after the case was concluded, and they had a valid claim for refund, then it would have been processed.

The support staff at Valve would be aware/trained in what the requirements were.


If they did not have a valid claim, then it would be rejected, if it was valid then I have to presume that it would be approved. If they didn't submit it then obviously they didn't get a refund.

[Shady Knights]

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Please stop trying to derail the thread with page after page of nonsense about a completely unrelated court case.

Slowmango was the first person to start talking about the ACCC on here back on June 14th.

[Komarimaru]

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Please stop trying to derail the thread with page after page of nonsense about a completely unrelated court case.

Slowmango was the first person to start talking about the ACCC on here back on June 14th.

Give up already. They listed two things. And you and others hung up on the ACCC.

And this was posted right after.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2016/196.html

That's the result, nothing more. No matter how you try and spin it.

And it's not relevant to another scam suite from a nobody in the UK who doesn't even understand the law.

[CEO Hunter]

Valve lost the case and it was found that they mislead consumers.

Valve also tried the dodgiest defense possible.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Shady Knights:

Originally posted by SlowMango:

cough

You keep saying things on here that aren't true. Sorry if you think that me pointing them out and providing sources is disrespectful.


"Funny thing is, the only thing the lost in the ACCC lawsuit was because they told a customer they don't have to follow the local consumer laws." - Um...no.


"You noticed how they were only found to be in violation of communication of consumer rights?
There was more than that claim in the lawsuit. That's the only one that stuck." - No - All claims stuck. Valve lost on all claims.


"Only about misleading consumers on refunds. Not for denying the refunds." - Misleading resulted in valid refunds being denied.

"The courts ruled that they did not deny refunds illegally and the refunds that had been denied were within Australian consumer law." No such ruling was ever made.

"Which means they never illegally denied refunds, only misrepresented their business in Australia." - They were found to be not following Australian Consumer Law with regards to refunds. If not following the law is not illegal, then I don't know what is.

"The refunds that were denied were deemed legally denied. Misrepresenting the requirement of refunds isn't illegally denying refunds." Nope, Valve had been found to be non-compliant with the Australian consumer law since 2011 to 2014.

"In which the final decision only deemed they misrepresented that they didn't do business in Australia. That's it. None of the other claims stuck." - Nope all claims stuck.



Pretty much all your arguments on this topic have been either misleading or proven to be false.

So you're ok with being disrespectful.

Got it.

[MrSteel300]

they should honestly face a bigger fine for telling publishers to raise prices by 400 percent cause their stupid security can't combat basic asf region hoppers. instead people blame publishers when it was originally valve's suggestion, this what happens when there is no competition, and then no rules to control competitors for establishing a monopolistic competition.

[MrSteel300]

Originally posted by 🏌 Jerry 🍕 VRcia 🏓:

i can be pretty critical of valve, but this is just asinine. there are plenty of other platforms for people to play on that feature the same games for the same prices, or less on key sites etc. i'd love to see their argument for epic literally paying for exclusivity. but none of this matters as it all normal practice on consoles for decades anyway and this lawsuit is "bollocks". it's some lawfirm trying to make a quick buck. looks like there's a history of this entity engaging in this type of behavior.

hopefully steam exits the UK :TyroneTheBull:

hopefully, i'm leaving for uk soon and i would love to have another store built exclusively around eu rules and culture rather then the usa corporate hell hole that is plaguing the industry. could even be a steam branch run just by the parliament.

[deborahsimpson]

$840 MILLION steam get in an hour