# Valve Corporation Eliminates Mandatory Arbitration Provision from Steam Subscriber Agreement
In a notable change, Valve Corporation, the entity behind the well-known digital distribution service Steam, has eliminated the mandatory arbitration provision from its **Steam Subscriber Agreement** (SSA). This adjustment, which was conveyed to users via an email notification, marks a significant shift from the company’s prior method of managing disputes with its clientele. Moving forward, users will need to bring their claims to court rather than utilizing arbitration.
## What Modifications Were Made to the Steam Subscriber Agreement?
Valve’s revised **Steam Subscriber Agreement** contains several important alterations regarding the resolution of disputes between the company and its customers. The most significant modification is the elimination of the mandatory arbitration provision, which previously compelled users to resolve conflicts through individual binding arbitration instead of through the judicial system. The new agreement requires that any claims or disputes be settled in **state or federal courts** situated in **King County, Washington**.
Moreover, Valve has eliminated the **class action waiver** and **cost and fee-shifting provisions** from the agreement. These amendments allow users to initiate class-action lawsuits against Valve, representing a major change from the former agreement, which prohibited such collective legal actions.
### Main Highlights from the Update:
– **No More Arbitration**: Disputes are now to be resolved in court, explicitly in King County, Washington.
– **Class Action Lawsuits Permitted**: Users are now able to join forces to file class-action lawsuits.
– **Immediate Implementation**: The revised terms are effective immediately for users who agree to them by making purchases, adding funds to their Steam wallet, or otherwise accepting the updated terms. For others, the changes will automatically take effect on **November 1, 2024**, unless they cease using their Steam account prior to that date.
## Why Did Valve Abolish the Arbitration Clause?
The choice to eliminate the arbitration clause likely arises from a range of legal challenges Valve has encountered in recent years, particularly concerning game pricing and arbitration claims. A key aspect of this is a **class-action lawsuit** initiated in the **US District Court for the Western District of Washington**. The plaintiffs in this case, identified as Steam users, successfully contested the enforceability of Valve’s arbitration provision. The lawsuit revealed that arbitrators deemed Valve’s arbitration clause unenforceable owing to **lack of proper notice** and its attempt to prevent **public injunctive relief**, a legal remedy beneficial to the general public.
### Arbitration: A Double-Edged Blade
Although arbitration is frequently perceived as disadvantageous for consumers—due to its restrictions on seeking compensation through the courts—many Steam users were able to obtain compensation from Valve via arbitration. Legal firms representing these consumers filed numerous arbitration cases, especially concerning alleged inflated game prices on Steam.
## Valve’s Legal Conflict with Law Firms Over Arbitration
Valve’s prior preference for arbitration was motivated by the fact that few consumers filed claims, which kept legal expenses relatively low. However, this scenario shifted when law firms began submitting **mass arbitration claims** on behalf of thousands of Steam users. A notable law firm, **Zaiger LLC**, emerged as a central figure in Valve’s legal dilemmas.
In **October 2023**, Valve initiated a lawsuit against Zaiger LLC, charging the firm with attempting to exploit the arbitration system. According to Valve, Zaiger’s scheme involved recruiting **75,000 clients** to submit arbitration claims on their behalf, potentially exposing Valve to millions of dollars in arbitration costs. Valve estimated that the firm’s strategy could lead to **$225 million** in arbitration fees alone, with each case costing Valve approximately **$3,000** in expenses.
Valve branded Zaiger’s actions as an “extortive plan” intended to coerce the company into settling for slightly less than the arbitration fees—around **$2,900 per claim**. The lawsuit also mentioned that Zaiger specifically targeted Valve because the company’s arbitration clause was advantageous to Steam users, as Valve committed to covering the fees and expenses associated with arbitration.
Zaiger LLC even established a **”Steam Claims” website**, urging Steam users to file arbitration claims for alleged inflated game prices. The site stated that numerous users received compensation offers just by filling out an initial form. Another law firm, **Mason LLP**, employed a similar tactic to assist gamers in bringing arbitration claims against Valve.
### Valve’s Arbitration Background
Prior to the influx of mass arbitration claims, Valve had seldom encountered arbitration cases. According to Valve’s lawsuit against Zaiger, only **two arbitration cases** occurred between **2017 and 2022**, both of which concluded in Valve’s favor. In these instances, Valve covered all the arbitrator fees and costs for both itself and the affected Steam users.
However, the mass arbitration approach adopted by legal firms such as Zaiger LLC and Mason LLP significantly transformed the legal landscape. Valve’s lawsuit against Zaiger was ultimately dismissed without prejudice in **August 2024** due to the court
