Valve Explains Its Position in New York Mystery Box Lawsuit

A high-scoring r/Games post has surfaced a new Steam Support statement that Valve addressed directly to New York players of Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2. In the March 11 note, Valve responds to a lawsuit from the New York Attorney General that claims mystery boxes such as crates, cases, and chests in Valve games violate New York gambling laws. Valve says it disagrees with that interpretation and decided to explain its position publicly.

Valve argues these items are optional and cosmetic, not something players need to buy to compete or even to keep playing. The company compares digital boxes to physical products like baseball card packs, blind boxes, Pokémon cards, Magic: The Gathering packs, and Labubu-style collectibles. Valve says most players do not open boxes at all, and that the ability to trade or sell items after opening them is a consumer benefit rather than proof that the system is unlawful.

The company also uses the post to emphasize its anti-gambling enforcement. Valve says it has locked more than one million Steam accounts that were being misused by third parties in connection with gambling, fraud, and theft. It also points to features such as trade reversal and trade cooldowns, and says gambling-related businesses are not allowed to sponsor tournaments for Valve games. The message is clear: Valve wants to distinguish between its own cosmetic-item economy and outside sites that try to exploit it.

Where the dispute appears sharpest is over the remedies New York wants. Valve says the Attorney General wants mystery-box items to become non-transferable and wants the company to collect more information about users for location and age verification. Valve argues that removing transfer rights would hurt legitimate users, while expanding data collection would mean more invasive tracking for players worldwide. That privacy framing is a major part of the company's defense.

Valve says it would comply if New York lawmakers passed specific rules through the legislative process, but it believes the Attorney General's demands go beyond current law. The company also says it could have been easier and cheaper to settle, yet it chose not to because it thinks the requested changes would be bad for users, other developers, and future game design. For players and publishers watching this case, the broader stakes are obvious: the court fight could influence how loot-box systems, item transfer, and platform compliance are handled well beyond New York.