Australia deceitanti competitive agreements

ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3)

[2016] FCA 196

JurisdictionAustralia

CourtFederal Court of Australia

Year2016

StatusBinding authority

Summary

Valve Corporation made false representations to Australian consumers that no refund rights existed for Steam game purchases, breaching consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL.

Key Principle

Valve Corporation was found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing to Australian consumers that they had no right to a refund for games purchased on Steam, contrary to the consumer guarantees under the ACL.

Area of Law

consumer

Related Cases

Google LLC v ACCC (2021) 391 ALR 346

Google was not liable for misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law in respect of sponsored search results created and placed by third-party advertisers.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1

HCA held 4:3 that a book-up system with Indigenous customers was not unconscionable under ASIC Act s.12CB; unconscionability requires more than a poor bargain.

ACCC v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25

FCAFC upheld that marketing identical ibuprofen products as targeting specific pain types was a misleading representation under the Australian Consumer Law.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3...