Valve Corporation, V. Bucher Law, Pllc Et Ano
86585-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Valve Corporation operates "Steam," an online platform for distributing video games, and requires users to arbitrate disputes individually per its Subscriber Agreement (SSA).
- The Bucher Defendants, law firms, represented thousands of Steam users with claims that Valve’s practices inflated game prices via anticompetitive conduct.
- Following the SSA, Bucher Defendants initiated individual arbitrations for each client after failing to resolve disputes informally with Valve.
- Valve sued the Bucher Defendants for tortious interference and abuse of process, alleging misuse of the arbitration process and interference with customer relationships.
- The Bucher Defendants moved to dismiss under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), arguing their conduct was protected as legal representation relating to First Amendment activity.
- The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, ordering dismissal with prejudice of Valve’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UPEPA applies to Bucher Defendants’ conduct | UPEPA does not apply due to statutory exceptions for service providers’ communications | Conduct related to legal representation is protected activity under UPEPA | UPEPA applies to defendants’ conduct |
| Applicability of litigation privilege to Bucher Defendants | Privilege does not apply; no adequate disciplinary power over defendants’ arbitration conduct | Litigation privilege absolutely shields attorneys for acts related to representing clients in process | Privilege applies; claim barred |
| Whether Valve stated viable tort claims against defendants | Tortious interference and abuse of process claims are plausible based on defendants’ actions | No tort claim stated; conduct is not actionable due to immunity and fails on legal grounds | No viable tort claim; dismissal required |
| Appealability of denial of UPEPA motion | Order not appealable as of right | Statute expressly grants right to appeal denial of UPEPA motion | Order appealable as of right |
Key Cases Cited
- Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (lawyers are officers of the court with fundamental role in justice)
- Deatherage v. Examining Bd. of Psychology, 134 Wn.2d 131 (litigation privilege for attorney communications in judicial proceedings)
- McNeal v. Allen, 95 Wn.2d 265 (litigation privilege absolutely shields attorney conduct relevant to legal relief sought)
- Jeckle v. Crotty, 120 Wn. App. 374 (litigation privilege applies to tortious interference claims against attorneys)
- King v. King, 162 Wn.2d 378 (right of access to courts under Washington Constitution)