Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday May 15 2022, @11:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the there's-a-steam-beat-and-it's-coming-after-you dept.

Judge brings dismissed Steam antitrust lawsuit back from the dead:

Last November, Western District of Washington Judge John Coughenour sided with Valve in dismissing a Steam antitrust lawsuit that had been filed by indie developer (and Humble Bundle creator) Wolfire Games. Now, that same judge is showing new respect for Wolfire's arguments, allowing parts of an amended version of the complaint to move forward.

In a May 6 ruling (noted by Bloomberg Law), Judge Coughenour said that the allegations in Wolfire's initial lawsuit were "anecdotal and threadbare" but that an amended lawsuit "provides additional context" and lays out a case that is "sufficient to plausibly allege unlawful conduct." As such, the judge has refused to dismiss large parts of that amended case, letting it move forward through the long judicial process.

In his original ruling, Judge Coughenour dismissed Wolfire's claims that Steam's 30 percent fee to publishers was higher than what the company would take in a more competitive market. At the time, the judge noted that Steam's fees had remained the same from its launch in 2003 through its alleged "market dominance" in 2013 and beyond.

In his new ruling, though, Judge Coughenour was receptive to the argument that Steam's fees relative to the competition have changed during that time, writing, "In those early days, Defendant was competing against brick-and-mortar game distributors, [but] the [amended complaint] makes it clear that Defendant did not need market power to charge a fee well above its cost structure because those brick-and-mortar competitors had a far higher cost structure."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday May 17 2022, @01:07AM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Tuesday May 17 2022, @01:07AM (#1245516)

    It sort of sounds like they are saying that even though they did not have market dominance, they dominated with profit margins, and their non brick and mortar style made it like they were the only shark in the pond. AKA, they were so far ahead of the game, that even though they were technically a tiny fish in a big pond, no one could reasonably compete.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2