The New York State Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Valve, accusing the company of “illegally promoting gambling” through in-game mechanics in Counter-Strike 2, Team Fortress 2, and Dota 2. The case quickly sparked controversy. Many members of the community criticized the lawsuit’s reasoning as contradictory and detached from how the games actually work.
Loot boxes as “slot machines”: the prosecution’s position
In its official press release, the New York Attorney General’s Office claims that Valve allows users — including children and teenagers — to “illegally participate in gambling” by buying loot boxes for a chance to obtain rare virtual items. According to the investigation, the case-opening process in Counter-Strike 2 resembles a slot machine. Prosecutors argue that random outcomes and limited availability of rare items create a classic gambling incentive. Letitia James summarized the position clearly:
Valve has made billions of dollars by letting children and adults alike illegally gamble for the chance to win valuable virtual prizes. These features are addictive, harmful, and illegal.
She added that the lawsuit aims to stop this practice and protect New York residents. This wording became the starting point for broader criticism. Many players and analysts questioned both the legal basis of the claims and their alignment with Valve’s actual game systems.
read more
What exactly Valve is accused of
According to the lawsuit, users pay to open virtual containers that award cosmetic items such as weapon skins or accessories. Prosecutors argue that:
- the CS2 case-opening mechanic visually and psychologically imitates a slot machine;
- Valve intentionally sets very low odds for rare items;
- the items have no gameplay value but can be sold for real money;
- Valve allegedly earned billions by exploiting players’ desire for expensive cosmetics.
The filing highlights the Counter-Strike skin market, which reportedly exceeded $4.3 billion in 2025. It also cites an AK-47 skin that allegedly sold for more than $1 million.
The most controversial passage
The strongest backlash did not come from the gambling comparison itself. Instead, it followed a passage that many described as outright absurd. The lawsuit states:
Although this case is about illegal gambling, it is important to note that Valve’s promotion of games that glorify violence and guns helps fuel the dangerous epidemic of gun violence, particularly among young gamers who can become numbed to grave violence before their brains are fully developed.
Critics quickly pointed out that this claim has no direct connection to loot boxes. Many saw it as an emotional argument rather than a legal one. The attempt to link video game monetization to gun violence in the United States drew widespread skepticism.
Industry and community reaction
Social media reacted immediately. Responses ranged from sarcasm to open rejection of the lawsuit’s logic. Analyst and dataminer Gabe Follower openly mocked the argument:
These idiots are just aurafarming. The case is full of mistakes and will barely change anything. Also this?
He specifically quoted the paragraph about “glorifying violence.” CS scene commentator Thour added irony:
Can you sue them for bad anti-cheat and shitty subtick? ty.
Other users questioned the selective nature of the lawsuit. Many asked why prosecutors did not target other publishers with similar mechanics. Some also compared loot boxes to physical card packs and booster products. Several posts pointed directly to age ratings:
Children? Game is 18+ LOL, wrote @TheSheep44, noting that CS2 carries an M / 17+ or 18+ rating in most regions.
Key contradictions of the case
Critics highlight several core issues:
- Age ratings: Valve’s games are not marketed to children.
- Gambling definition: Opening a case always grants an item, not nothing.
- Selectivity: Many games use similar systems, yet the lawsuit targets Valve alone.
- Emotional framing: Linking loot boxes to gun violence reads as political messaging, not legal reasoning.
What the prosecution is seeking
The Office of Letitia James seeks to:
- ban Valve’s loot boxes in New York State;
- recover alleged ill-gotten gains;
- impose financial penalties under state law.
Valve has not issued an official response at the time of publication. Given the company’s scale and the broader implications for the industry, the case may last for years and set an important precedent.
At the same time, the reaction from players and experts suggests that many view the lawsuit not as genuine consumer protection, but as a weak and ideologically overloaded attempt to pressure one of the gaming industry’s key companies.
read more
Our take
In our view, this lawsuit looks deeply misguided. Accusing Valve of gambling over a case system that has existed for more than a decade ignores the reality of how the ecosystem works. A full-fledged skin market has formed over the years, with some players even storing part of their capital in digital items. When opening a case, players always receive an item — the uncertainty lies only in its rarity and market value, which is the core of the system.
The odds are public, and players open cases knowingly, largely for the emotional experience. While the gambling argument can at least be partially understood, the claims about “glorifying violence” make little sense. Counter-Strike and Dota are fundamentally competitive games, especially CS, which has been a pure esport since the 1.6 era. There is no graphic violence or gore, and the goal is simply to outplay the opponent.
Because of this, the lawsuit does not feel like a carefully grounded legal action. Instead, it reads more like an attempt to pressure a major industry player using broad and emotionally charged arguments.
