Recommended Free Tools
Steam is a major PC game distribution platform and a federal court has described Valve as the market leader—but that does not establish that Valve is an unlawful monopolist. The answer depends on how the market is defined, whether Valve has durable market power in it, and whether its conduct unlawfully protects that power. The US and UK decisions discussed here let claims proceed at procedural stages; neither is a final ruling that Valve violated antitrust law.
What does “monopoly” mean in antitrust law?
Being the biggest or best-known seller in a market is not, by itself, illegal. The Federal Trade Commission explains that courts do not require a literal monopoly to examine single-firm conduct: the key concept is significant, durable market power—the long-term ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. The legal question also concerns how that power was obtained or maintained. The FTC says success through superior products, innovation, or business skill is legal; exclusionary or predatory conduct may raise antitrust concerns. FTC: Monopolization Defined
So “Is Steam a monopoly?” bundles together two different questions: how much power Valve has in a properly defined market, and whether its conduct crosses the legal line. A large share may be relevant evidence, but it does not answer either question on its own.
Why does the definition of the market matter?
A market-share figure is meaningful only in relation to what is being counted. A case might examine PC game distribution broadly, PC desktop game distribution, or a narrower service such as processing payments for in-game purchases. Each definition changes which alternatives count and therefore can change the apparent share.
#1 Best Overall
- 1TB NVMe SSD
- 1280 x 800 HDR OLED display with premium anti-glare etched glass, 7.4" Diagonal display size up to 90Hz refresh rate
- Wi-Fi 6E
- 50Whr battery; 3-12 hours of gameplay (content-dependent)
- Carrying case with removable liner
Steam competes with other storefronts, but the relevant legal market is not automatically every place a player might obtain a game. The complaints propose market definitions as part of their cases; those proposals are not settled market definitions adopted after a final trial. Whether other stores or methods of distribution constrain Valve effectively over time is an empirical question, not something these figures establish by themselves.
What do the reported market-share figures show?
The figures in the complaints are allegations or attributed estimates, not court-established measurements or verified current market shares. Their different definitions and dates also mean they should not be treated as interchangeable.
| Figure | What it refers to | Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| At least 75% | Valve’s share of PC game distribution, as alleged by the plaintiffs in the August 9, 2024 consumer class complaint. | The complaint’s allegation about its proposed market; not a court finding. Read the complaint. |
| 74% | Steam’s share of PC desktop game distribution in 2024, attributed to industry analysts by the New York Attorney General in a February 25, 2026 complaint. | An estimate cited in a pleading; the complaint passage does not identify the analysts’ underlying methodology. It is not a verified current share. Read the New York complaint. |
The two percentages are not independent confirmation of one precise market share: they use different descriptions of the market, and both come through legal pleadings rather than a court’s final fact-finding. The available figures do not settle whether Valve’s market power is durable or whether alternative stores can constrain it.
Rank #2
- International (UK) Version
- 7.4” diagonal, HDR OLED, 1280 x 800 x RGB, up to 90Hz Refresh rate, High performance touch, <0.1 ms Response time, 1,000 nits peak brightness (HDR), 600 nits (SDR)
- SteamOS 3.0 (Arch-based)
- 512GB NVMe SSD, 16GB LPDDR5 on-board RAM (5500 MT/s quad 32-bit channels), microSD UHS-I supports SD, SDXC and SDHC
- 6 nm AMD APU, CPU: Zen 2 4c/8t, 2.4-3.5GHz (up to 448 GFlops FP32
What conduct do the plaintiffs challenge?
The central allegations concern rules that plaintiffs say restrict how publishers sell games and related content outside Steam. The complaints and proceedings raise several connected issues:
- Price-parity obligations: Plaintiffs allege that Valve’s rules limit publishers’ ability to offer lower prices through competing channels. Their theory is that this can weaken price competition between stores. The allegation and its effects remain disputed.
- Commissions: The New York Attorney General’s 2026 complaint says Valve generally charges a 30% commission on third-party games sold through Steam. That is a statement in the complaint, not an independently verified universal fee; it should not be generalized to every transaction.
- In-game payment processing: The 2024 US complaint asserts a separate market for PC in-game payment processing and alleges that Valve’s requirements restrict alternative payment processing. That is the plaintiffs’ proposed market and account of the rules, not a judicial finding.
- Steam Keys and effective commission: In the UK proceedings, the tribunal discussed methodological questions about Steam Keys and calculating the effective commission. Those questions matter to how the proposed case measures effects; discussion of a method is not a finding that the alleged effects occurred.
The antitrust significance of these practices depends on evidence about their operation and effects—such as whether they limit rival platforms, raise prices, or reduce consumer choice—and on any business justifications Valve may offer. The pleadings alone do not resolve that balance.
What have the US and UK proceedings decided?
US federal case: class certification, not liability
In its June 27, 2025 order in In re Valve Antitrust Litigation, the US District Court for the Western District of Washington called Valve “the uncontroverted market leader in digital PC game distribution” and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Read the June 27, 2025 order.
Class certification determines whether claims can proceed collectively under the applicable procedural requirements. It does not decide that Valve unlawfully monopolized a market, nor does the court’s description of Valve as the leader establish antitrust liability.
UK collective proceedings: permission for a proposed case to proceed
In Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative Limited v Valve Corporation, [2026] CAT 4, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal considered an application for a collective proceedings order. It concluded that the authorisation condition was satisfied and that it was just and reasonable for the proposed representative to act. Its judgment also addressed methodological objections, including the treatment of Steam Keys and estimates of the effects of alleged price-parity obligations. Read the tribunal’s judgment.
This was a decision about whether the proposed collective claim could proceed, not a final judgment on whether Valve infringed competition law.
Rank #4
- Valve is entering the gaming console marketplace with the new Steam Deck, a console geared towards PC gamers. The Steam Deck can be docked to a monitor, and used as a PC, or docked to a TV.
- Players can play a huge variety of games at any time with the comfort of a console and the freedom of a PC. Not anti-glare screen.
- Like the name suggests, the Steam Deck will include upgraded 1TB storage, and will include a carrying case. A micro SD slot will also enable expanded storage.
- Valve partnered with AMD to create a specialized APU optimized for handheld gaming, and Valve says the chip will deliver performance to run AAA gaming titles.
- The Steam Deck is outfitted with a 7-inch touchscreen, and two trackpads under the control sticks that allow gamers to operate games never designed outside of mouse and keyboard capabilities.
New York complaint: allegations in a separate state action
The New York Attorney General filed a complaint on February 25, 2026. It cites the 74% estimate and alleges that Valve generally charges a 30% commission on third-party games. The complaint also includes allegations under New York gambling law concerning game features. Those allegations should not be conflated with a judicial finding that Valve has monopoly power or has violated antitrust law.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What would settle the question?
A merits decision would require more than a headline market-share number. Among the issues a court would need to assess are:
- Which market, or markets, are supported by the evidence, and which alternatives belong in each one.
- Reliable evidence of Valve’s share and whether any market power is significant and durable.
- Whether the challenged rules actually exclude or disadvantage rivals, and how they affect prices, output, publishers, and players.
- Valve’s explanations for the rules and whether any asserted benefits or business justifications outweigh anticompetitive effects.
The cited cases remain part of that dispute, but procedural decisions do not answer those merits questions. The FTC’s overview of monopolization provides the general US single-firm-conduct framework; the US, UK, and New York proceedings apply different laws and procedural tests.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
