The UK’s $900 million lawsuit against Valve, which accuses the company of maintaining an unfair monopoly over game pricing and add-on sales, has drawn sharp public backing from Epic Games’ CEO. The legal action, now cleared to proceed as a collective case, centers on Valve’s 30% revenue cut for developers and its prohibition on in-game purchase options that direct users to third-party stores. These restrictions, critics argue, inflate costs for UK consumers while stifling competition.
Epic’s CEO has framed the dispute as a critical moment for the gaming industry, drawing parallels to the company’s own high-profile legal battles with Apple and Google. Both tech giants were ultimately forced to abandon similar in-app purchase restrictions after Epic’s legal challenges. The CEO highlighted a key distinction: while Apple and Google now allow developers to steer users to external payment methods—even collecting no fee on those transactions—Valve remains the sole major platform enforcing both a payments tie-in and a 30% commission.
The lawsuit alleges that Valve’s policies prevent developers from offering lower prices elsewhere or selling add-ons directly through in-game interfaces. For example, while DLC can technically be purchased outside Steam, the platform’s rules bar developers from promoting those alternatives within a game’s own storefront. This, the CEO argued, mirrors the kind of anti-competitive behavior that led to Epic’s victories against Apple and Google.
At a glance: What’s at stake in the lawsuit
- Valve’s 30% revenue cut for developers, which the lawsuit claims artificially inflates game prices for UK consumers.
- A ban on in-game purchase options that direct users to third-party stores, even if those transactions generate no fee for Valve.
- Allegations that Valve’s dominance in the PC gaming market allows it to enforce these policies without meaningful competition.
- Potential for a legal precedent that could force Valve to adjust its fee structure or allow alternative in-game purchasing methods.
The CEO’s reflect Epic’s long-standing position that Steam’s fee structure is unsustainable and that the company’s own store was partly created to challenge it. In 2019, the CEO suggested that if Valve reduced its cut to 12%, Epic would abandon exclusivity deals and even consider listing Fortnite on Steam—a move that would have directly competed with Valve’s own platform.
Industry observers note that Valve’s policies have faced growing scrutiny, particularly as competitors like the Epic Games Store, Microsoft’s Xbox Store, and niche platforms have emerged with lower fees or more flexible pricing models. The UK lawsuit, along with a separate class-action case in the US, could force Valve to reconsider its approach—especially if courts rule that its practices violate anti-competitive laws.
For now, the legal battle remains unresolved, but the CEO’s public support signals Epic’s willingness to back challenges that could reshape the industry’s fee structures. If Valve loses, the ripple effects could extend beyond pricing, potentially opening the door to more transparent and competitive in-game commerce—a shift that has already begun with Apple and Google.
