Antitrust lawsuits have garnered a lot of attention over the past year, as Epic Games' court cases against both Apple's App Store and the Google Play shop progressed. Success has been limited for Epic Games, however, as proving a monopoly is no simple matter. Even Epic's ounce of success against Apple, however, is significant in comparison to the now-concluded case against Valve and Steam filed by Wolfire Games. Judge John C. Coughenour recently dismissed the case.
The Wolfire Games antitrust lawsuit came to a conclusion on Friday when the judge presiding approved Valve's motion to dismiss, though with a footnote. In his dismissal, Judge Coughenour explained that antitrust claims must allege four key points. One of those points is an alleged injury to the plaintiff, who in this case is Wolfire. The judge states that Wolfire doesn't adequately "articulate sufficient facts" alleging injury. As such, the case hasn't established a "claim upon which relief can be granted," and the judge has no choice but to dismiss.
Wolfire does allege injuries to itself as part of its Class Action Complaint, but Judge Coughenour found no merit in its claims. Referring to Steam's fees, the judge noted Valve has used the same 30% fee since 2001 when digital distribution was in a "fledgling state." In other words, Valve's fees aren't shown to be an effort in expressing monopoly control over the market. Wolfire also alleged Valve's actions result in lower output and quality of games. Valve, however, was able to show how the number of games released on Steam has increased consistently. The judge notably doesn't comment on game quality.
One important additional detail is that Judge Coughenour does not dismiss the case with prejudice. He gives leave for Wolfire to file an amended complaint in the future, so long as it addresses the issues that are discussed in the dismissal. Wolfire only has 30 days beyond November 19 to refile, however.
Wolfire's case, like Epic's against Apple's, alleges that Valve had established an anticompetitive marketplace with Steam. Valve allegedly uses "anti-competitive practices" to maintain dominance in the market space, allowing it to force game publishers to pay "supracompetitive fees."
While Wolfire will be able to refile its case against Valve if it chooses, it clearly has an uphill battle in front of it. When a US court didn't rule in Epic's favor against Apple, outside of a relatively small aspect of the case, it showed that proving monopolistic practices in the digital economy is no simple matter. And Epic v. Apple was regarding mobile devices, where there's much less competition than among PC storefronts. Suffice to say, Valve's fees on Steam seem unlikely to change.