(AGENPARL) – mer 27 settembre 2023 PRESS RELEASE No 147/23
Luxembourg, 27 September 2023
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-172/21 | Valve Corporation v Commission
Online video games: the General Court confirms that geo-blocking of
activation keys for the Steam platform infringed EU competition law
In agreeing bilaterally to that geo-blocking, the operator of the Steam platform, Valve and five PC video games
publishers unlawfully restricted cross-border sales of certain PC video games that are compatible with that
platform
Acting on information received concerning geo-blocking of certain PC video games on the Steam platform according
to users’ geographical location, the Commission began an investigation. By decisions of 20 January 2021, it found
that the operator of the platform, Valve and five games publishers, namely Bandai, Capcom, Focus Home, Koch
Media and ZeniMax, infringed EU competition law.
The Commission found that Valve and the five publishers had participated in a group of anti-competitive
agreements or concerted practices which were intended to restrict cross-border sales of certain PC video games
that were compatible with the Steam platform, by putting in place territorial control functionalities during different
periods between 2010 and 2015, in particular the Baltic countries and certain countries in central and Eastern
Europe.
Valve brought an action before the General Court of the European Union, seeking to have the decision annulled in
so far as it related to it.
In its judgment delivered today, the General Court dismisses the action.
The General Court finds that the Commission established to the requisite legal standard the existence of an
agreement or concerted practice between Valve and each of the five publishers having as its object the restriction of
parallel imports through geo-blocking of keys enabling activation and, in certain cases, use of the video games
at issue on the Steam platform. That geo-blocking sought to prevent the video games, distributed in certain
countries at low prices, from being purchased by distributors or users located in other countries where
prices are much higher.
Thus, the geo-blocking at issue did not pursue an objective of protecting the copyright of the publishers of
the PC video games, but was used to eliminate parallel imports of those video games and protect the high royalty
amounts collected by the publishers, or the margins earned by Valve.
In response to a number of arguments put forward by Valve, the General Court also rules on the relationship
between EU competition law and copyright. In particular, it observes that copyright is intended only to ensure
for the right holders concerned protection of the right to exploit commercially the marketing or the making
available of the protected subject matter, by the grant of licences in return for payment of remuneration.
However, it does not guarantee them the opportunity to demand the highest possible remuneration or to
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
engage in conduct such as to lead to artificial price differences between the partitioned national markets.
Such partitioning and such an artificial price difference to which it gives rise are irreconcilable with the completion of
the internal market.
Nor has Valve managed to cast doubt on the overall categorisation of the collusive conduct at issue as being
sufficiently harmful to competition and as a restriction by object by referring to the alleged pro-competitive effects
of the geo-blocking at issue.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are
contrary to EU law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions,
bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act
is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.
NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
The full text and, as the case may be, the résumé of the judgment are published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Communications Directorate