Valve is now facing a second major lawsuit in less than two weeks, this time from the UK’s Performing Rights Society (PRS), which alleges the company has failed to obtain necessary music licenses for games distributed on Steam.
The PRS, which represents songwriters and publishers, claims Valve has not secured licensing for the use of its managed repertoire in games since Steam’s launch in 2003. The lawsuit is brought under Section 20 of the UK’s Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, which covers the 'making available' right—meaning the distribution or streaming of copyrighted music.
While Valve may argue that licensing responsibility lies with game developers, the PRS’s legal action suggests a potential shift in how digital platforms are held accountable for music usage. This case could have broader implications for the gaming industry if it sets a precedent under UK law.
Key Details of the Lawsuit
- Claim: Valve has not obtained PRS licenses since Steam’s launch in 2003, allegedly violating UK copyright law.
- Legal Basis: Section 20 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, covering 'making available' rights for digital distribution.
- Scope: Affects games featuring music from PRS-affiliated artists, both retrospectively and moving forward.
The lawsuit comes just days after New York’s Attorney General filed a separate case against Valve, accusing the company of operating gambling-like loot boxes in games such as Counter-Strike 2. Combined with an existing £656 million class-action lawsuit over Steam’s 30% fee structure, Valve is now embroiled in multiple high-stakes legal disputes.
Broader Implications
If the PRS case succeeds, it could force Valve to renegotiate licensing agreements for thousands of games, a move that would likely raise costs and complicate operations. The UK’s approach differs from other jurisdictions, where such responsibilities often fall on developers rather than platforms. This lawsuit may test whether digital distributors can be held liable under stricter interpretations of copyright law.
Valve has not yet responded publicly to the PRS claim, but industry observers suggest the company will likely push back, arguing that licensing is a developer obligation. The outcome could influence how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly as digital distribution continues to evolve.
