# C_2021228EN.01003201.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/32

---

Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Valve v Commission

(Case T-172/21)

(2021/C 228/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Valve Corp. (Bellevue, Washington, United States) (represented by: L. Kjølbye, S. Völcker, and G. Caldini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision of 20 January 2021 relating to proceedings under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases AT.40413 — Focus Home, AT.40414 — Koch Media, AT.40420 — ZeniMax, AT.40422 — Bandai Namco and AT.40424 — Capcom — C(2021) 75 final), in whole or in part; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 20 January 2021 relating to proceedings under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases AT.40413 — Focus Home, AT.40414 — Koch Media, AT.40420 — ZeniMax, AT.40422 — Bandai Namco and AT.40424 — Capcom — C(2021) 75 final), in whole or in part; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the finding of agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers, resulting from the European Commission’s unjustified expansion of the relevant case law to encompass conduct that falls short of ‘concertation’ and wrong assessment of the conduct at issue. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the finding of agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers, resulting from the European Commission’s unjustified expansion of the relevant case law to encompass conduct that falls short of ‘concertation’ and wrong assessment of the conduct at issue.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the Commission’s finding that the alleged agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers restrict competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, resulting from the Commission’s failure to appreciate the novelty of the conduct at issue, and wrong assessment of the relevant legal and economic context, namely the relevance of the Copyright Directive, the role of Valve as a two-sided platform, and the nature of the products and services at issue (digital videogames). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU in relation to the Commission’s finding that the alleged agreements/concerted practices between Valve and each of the five video game publishers restrict competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, resulting from the Commission’s failure to appreciate the novelty of the conduct at issue, and wrong assessment of the relevant legal and economic context, namely the relevance of the Copyright Directive, the role of Valve as a two-sided platform, and the nature of the products and services at issue (digital videogames).

---