Ius Omnibus, a consumer protection association, has filed a lawsuit against Valve Corporation, the US company that owns Steam — the world’s largest digital platform for selling computer games. The lawsuit was filed on 30 December 2025 at the Court of Competition, Regulation and Supervision in Santarém. The association accuses Valve of engaging in illegal commercial practices that have eliminated competition and led Portuguese consumers to pay higher prices for games. If the case is successful, the company will be required to cease these practices and compensate affected consumers.
The action aims to protect all residents of Portugal who, since 27 September 2010, have purchased computer games or additional content (such as expansions, new levels, characters or missions) at least once via any digital platform — not just via Steam.
Valve is accused of three types of illegal practices:
Imposing uniform prices across all platforms. Since 2013, Valve has required companies selling games on Steam not to offer lower prices on competing platforms. In other words, even if another digital store wanted to sell a game more cheaply, the contract with Valve prevents it from doing so. This eliminates price competition and directly harms consumers.
Games ‘locked’ to the platform. Games purchased on Steam only work within Steam — it is not possible to transfer them to another platform. This lack of cross-platform compatibility forces consumers to remain dependent on Steam and makes it difficult to switch to competitors, even if they offer better terms.
Blocking of purchases in other countries. Between 2010 and 2015, Valve prevented European consumers from buying games in other countries where prices were lower. This practice, known as geo-blocking, has already been deemed illegal by the European Commission, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Valve charges a 30% commission on all sales made through Steam. This cost is, in practice, passed on to consumers through higher prices. By preventing other platforms from charging lower prices and by tying games to its platform, Valve has eliminated the competitive pressure that would normally force prices down.
In short: Portuguese consumers paid more for games than they would have if there had been genuine competition in the market.
If the court rules in favour of Ius Omnibus, Valve will be ordered to put an end to its illegal practices and to compensate consumers who have been harmed by having paid inflated prices.
Identification of the Parties
Plaintiff: Associação Ius Omnibus
Defendants: Valve Corporation
Court
Santarém Court of Competition, Regulation and Supervision – Competition, Regulation and Supervision Division (Judge 2)
Number of the process
1/26.9YQSTR (Class action)
Request (in summary)
a) That the Defendant be declared to have, between 27 September 2010 and 9 October 2015, in relation to the represented consumers, infringed competition law through agreements and/or concerted practices aimed at restricting cross-border sales of certain computer games within the EEA;
b) Declare that the Defendant, since 1 January 2013, in relation to the represented consumers, has infringed competition law through abusive conduct and agreements containing non-compete clauses that restrict competition in the distribution of computer games and add-on content, resulting in unfair trading conditions and unlawful tied sales;
c) The Defendant be ordered to cease the unlawful practices in question and to refrain from engaging in them in the future;
d) A declaration that the Defendant’s practices have caused harm to the diffuse and/or collective interests relating to the protection of the consumption of goods and services and competition, and to the homogeneous individual interests of the consumers represented;
e) That the Defendant be ordered to pay full compensation to all consumers represented in this action for the damages suffered as a result of the anti-competitive practices in question, from 27 September 2010 to the cessation of the harmful practices.
Status of the lawsuit
Pending
Consumer’s summons
12 February 2026: Order directing the service of process on consumers so that, if they so wish, they may intervene in the proceedings as principal parties or declare in the record whether or not they accept being represented by the Plaintiff, or whether, on the contrary, they exclude themselves from such representation, on pain of their silence being deemed acceptance.
You can view the Court’s notice here.
This is a collective action lawsuit for the protection of consumer relations and privacy and the protection of personal data, for the protection of children, the protection of the free development of the personality and self-determination of minors, for the defense of the moral, psychological and physical integrity and health of minors and the homogeneous individual interests of consumers, filed by Ius Omnibus.
The action is filed under articles 52(3) and 60(3) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, articles 2, 5, 6 and 12 of the Collective Actions Law (Decree-Law 114-A/2023, of December 5), and articles 31 and 546(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Valve Corporation has adopted a set of anti-competitive practices that have harmed consumers residing in Portugal who, since 27 September 2010, have purchased computer games and/or additional content (‘add-on content’) at least once via a digital distribution platform.
These practices restricted competition between digital distribution platforms and contributed to consumers paying higher prices.
Since 1 January 2013, Valve Corporation has entered into — and continues to enter into — contracts with game publishers stipulating that the terms and conditions for the sale of computer games and add-on content via the Steam platform must not be less favourable than those applied on any other digital distribution channels, whether operated by the publishers themselves or by third parties.
In simple terms, this means that publishers are prevented from selling their games at lower prices on other platforms. These price parity clauses constitute agreements that restrict competition in the market for the digital distribution of computer games, limiting competition between platforms and hindering the entry of new operators into the market.
Games purchased via Steam can only be used on that platform. Similarly, add-on content purchased on Steam can only be used if the base computer game was purchased on the same platform. This practice, known as tying, prevents consumers from transferring their games to other platforms and reinforces dependence on Steam.
Valve charges publishers a 30% distribution fee for making their computer games and add-on content available on Steam. This cost is passed on to consumers through higher prices.
Between 2010 and 2015, Valve adopted geo-blocking practices that restricted cross-border sales of certain games within the European Economic Area. These practices prevented consumers from purchasing games in other Member States at potentially lower prices.
As a result of these practices, Valve Corporation has caused harm to the homogeneous individual interests of the consumers represented, as they paid higher prices than they would have done had the anti-competitive conduct not taken place. This overcharge constitutes financial loss.
This class action represents all consumers resident in Portugal who have, on at least one occasion since 27 September 2010, purchased computer games and/or additional content (‘add-on content’) for computer games via a digital distribution platform.
Consumers do not need to do anything to be represented in the action and to be entitled to compensation should the action be successful (they will only need to claim their compensation at that time).
Any consumer who does not wish to be represented in this action may exercise their right to opt out by notifying the court of their intention. Consumers may also decide to intervene in the proceedings in support of Ius Omnibus within the time limit to be set by the Court.
In summary, Ius Omnibus asks the Court to:
a) Declare that the Defendant, between 27 September 2010 and 9 October 2015, in relation to the represented consumers, infringed competition law through agreements and/or concerted practices aimed at restricting cross-border sales of certain computer games within the EEA;
b) Declare that the Defendant, since 1 January 2013, in relation to the represented consumers, has infringed competition law through abusive conduct and agreements containing parity clauses that restrict competition in the distribution of computer games and add-on content, resulting in unfair trading conditions and unlawful tied sales;
c) Order the Defendant to cease the unlawful practices in question and to refrain from engaging in them in the future;
d) Declare that the Defendant’s practices have caused harm to the diffuse and/or collective interests of consumer protection in relation to goods and services and competition, and to the homogeneous individual interests of the represented consumers;
e) That the Defendant be ordered to fully compensate all consumers represented in this action for the damages suffered as a result of the anti-competitive practices in question, from 27 September 2010 until the cessation of the harmful practices.
The mechanism for mass compensation of consumers used here, as provided for in the Portuguese rules on class actions, has not yet been tested in practice through to the final stage. However, according to the law, the following will occur if the court rules in favour of Ius Omnibus:
1) The court will set the total amount of compensation to be paid by Valve Corporation to consumers, and will determine the method of distributing individual compensation to each consumer (for example, direct payment by a defendant, or distribution by an entity appointed by the court);
2) The court will set the method and deadline for represented consumers to claim their share of the compensation (not distributed directly), and this information will be publicised in various ways;
3) Consumers (who do not receive compensation directly from a Defendant) will need to contact the entity responsible for managing the compensation fund, as well as submit the evidence required by the court and payment instructions, in order to receive their share of the compensation;
4) At the end of the period set by the court, if any part of the total compensation amount remains unclaimed by consumers:
(i) This amount will be used to pay the costs incurred by Ius Omnibus in connection with the proceedings;
(ii) Any remaining amount will be handed over to the State, with 60% going to the Fund for the Promotion of Consumer Rights and 40% to the Institute for Financial Management and Judicial Equipment, I.P.
Consumers do not need to contact the Court or Ius Omnibus, but it may be in their interest to do so.
All consumers resident in Portugal who have, on at least one occasion since 27 September 2010, purchased computer games and/or additional content (‘add-on content’) for computer games via a digital distribution platform.
If you do not wish to be represented, you will need to exercise your right to opt out.
If you wish to be represented, you do not need to do anything else for the time being to be entitled to compensation should Ius Omnibus win this case.
At the end of the proceedings, should the action be successful, you may contact the entity designated by the Court (if applicable) to claim your compensation.
However, if you wish to intervene in the case in support of Ius Omnibus, you may do so within the time limit to be set by the Court.
All consumers represented in this action are invited to contact Ius Omnibus immediately so that their details can be recorded and they can be kept informed by Ius Omnibus of all developments in the case, ensuring they do not miss the opportunity to claim their compensation when the time comes. They can do so using the form available on this page.
Preparing a claim of this nature properly, to ensure its success, is extremely costly, requiring the hiring of specialist lawyers and consultants. The success of the claim depends on the proper handling of extensive and technical facts within an extremely complex area of legal, economic and technological knowledge. An effective response is also subject to the vast financial and human resources that will be mobilised by the opposing parties.
However, consumers will never have to pay any sum, bear any costs or waive any part of the compensation to which they are entitled. The case is funded by an entity specialising in litigation funding, FSF 1, LLC.
The funding agreement is subject to the court’s scrutiny, and the funder cannot interfere with or determine how Ius Omnibus manages the case.
The funder assumes all risk and costs. If Ius Omnibus loses the case, the funder is not entitled to any compensation. If Ius Omnibus wins the case, the funder will receive the amount that the Court deems appropriate and fair.
The financier will only receive this amount if part of the total compensation paid by the Defendant remains after the deadline for consumers to apply to for individual compensation has expired. The remaining amount is then allocated in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.