Valve Corp. is asking a Seattle federal judge to throw out a proposed class action seeking nearly $21 million in arbitration fees from the software company, claiming the suit is part of a scheme by law firm Mason LLP in which attorneys are seeking identical relief through redundant court challenges.

Valve claims the suit, led by plaintiff Jeffrey Smith, is the third case Mason has filed "seeking exactly this relief on behalf of overlapping groups of consumers." It's asking the court to toss the action, rule in the company's favor as a matter of law or reject Smith's class allegations.

"This action is not about the vindication of plaintiffs' substantive claims, or for that matter the claims of any putative class members," Valve said in a Tuesday filing in Washington federal court. "The true purpose of this action is to further Mason's scheme to force Valve into a position where it must pay $20.8 million in arbitration fees for thousands of individuals who have no arbitration rights."

Smith is among tens of thousands of consumers who hired the Mason law firm to represent them in antitrust claims against Valve. He and others allege the company, which operates the distribution platform Steam, used its dominance as a video game distributor to artificially inflate prices.

In 2021, Valve sought to move the challenges to arbitration under its existing user agreement, and a Washington federal judge granted the request. Valve said it subsequently paid $1.86 million in fees to the American Arbitration Association to file 14,911 arbitrations.

Those arbitrations were paused when the parties agreed to mediate the disputes, the company said, though mediation ultimately failed. The consumers then attempted to lift the hold on the pending arbitrations, while Valve asked AAA to close the cases.

During the period when parties were trying to resolve the dispute, Valve said in its motion asking that the suit be thrown out, the company updated its user service agreement to remove the contract's arbitration provision. The change, it claimed, was in response to arbitration rulings finding the arbitration clause was unenforceable under California law.

Valve said in Tuesday's motion that it declined to pay AAA's nearly $21 million invoice for case management fees because it believes the claimants are no longer parties to arbitration agreements with the company under its revised service agreement.

Mason LLP then filed three lawsuits over four months seeking to force Valve to pay the fees.

In May, plaintiff Pamela Welty filed a proposed class action in California state court that was later moved to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. In June, another plaintiff, Ryan Lally, part of a separate suit filed in Washington's Western District, moved to sanction Valve and force the company to pay the fees.

"Those are the very same fees that plaintiff demands that Valve pay through this action," the company says in Tuesday's filing.

In all the cases, including Smith's suit filed in August, Valve argued that the plaintiffs have failed to state claims under which the courts can grant relief. Fee disputes with the American Arbitration Association are solely within the AAA's purview and aren't subject to court review, the company argues.

Notably, Smith's suit was transferred on Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead, who is also assigned to Lally's proposed class action.

Valve also said plaintiffs' claims lack merit when it comes to allegations the company broke Washington state laws regarding breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Federal Arbitration Act, not state law, governs the arbitrations, it said.

The company also refuted that it broke its contract with consumers, noting that the suits against it acknowledge that Valve took the disputes to arbitration as required under the earlier user agreements.

And under the revised service agreement — which Valve claims is valid and was communicated to the plaintiffs — there exists no arbitration agreement, the company claimed.

Valve itself sued roughly 600 individual game purchasers in October 2024 in an effort to stop the arbitration proceedings.

Mason isn't the only law firm the software company has accused of trying to take advantage of the legal process. Valve also claimed earlier this year that Bucher Law PLLC and AFN Law PLLC were weaponizing the earlier arbitration clause in an effort to shake down the gaming giant. The judge in that case, however, said in May that the allegations would be better handled by the Washington State Bar Association.

In addition to antitrust challenges from consumers, several game developers also filed proposed class actions against Valve in 2021, claiming the company abused its market dominance.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Jeffrey Smith is represented by Michael C. Subit of Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP and Gary E. Mason, Danielle L. Perry, Theodore B. Bell and Jacob D. Eisenberg of Mason LLP.

Valve Corp. is represented by Blake Marks-Dias and Colin M. George of Corr Cronin LLP and Michael W. McTigue Jr. and Meredith C. Slawe of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

The case is Jeffrey Smith et al. v. Valve Corp., case number 2:25-cv-01478, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.