Updated: 8/1/2025 4:18 p.m. ET: In a statement to Kotaku, a spokesperson for Valve said that while Mastercard did not communicate with it directly, concerns did come through payment processor and banking intermediaries. They said payment processors rejected Valve’s current guidelines for moderating illegal content on Steam, citing Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7.

“Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,” Valve’s statement sent over email to Kotaku reads. “Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks.  Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution.  Payment processors rejected this, and specifically cited Mastercard’s Rule 5.12.7 and risk to the Mastercard brand.”

Rule 5.12.7 states, “A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.”

It goes on, “The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark.”

Violations of rule 5.12.7 can result in fines, audits, or companies being dropped by the payment processors.

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    149
    ·
    1 day ago

    Brilliant, just make your rules vague and force everyone else down the chain to self-censor. Surely this will result in the best outcome.

    Fucking mastercard

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      It’s not even that vague.

      Valve basically said: “we are not doing anything illegal”.

      To which mastercard responded: “yeah but you’re making us look bad, so tough”.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        15 hours ago

        To which mastercard responded

        I don’t think you read this properly. Mastercard didn’t respond at all.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Of course they did.

          They just did so from behind a veil of plausible deniability.

          You think a citatation of a specific mastercard contract clause came from a concerned partner?

          • Microw@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            A lawyer for a processor like PayPal or Stripe could easily have gone “uh, the Mastercard contract clause prohibits this”.

            And PayPal is well known for doing shitty things, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

            • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Maybe.

              But Valve asked mastercard directly.

              A lack of a response is a also a response, in this case essentially an endorsement of whatever their partner was telling Valve.

              • Ulrich@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                Did you not read literally the first line?

                In a statement to Kotaku, a spokesperson for Valve said that while Mastercard did not communicate with it directly, concerns did come through payment processor and banking intermediaries

                • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  Yes.

                  Plausible deniability.

                  “Oh so sorry that wasn’t us, one of our partners just overzealously applied our policies”

                  • Ulrich@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    You seem to have forgotten what we were discussing, which was that Mastercard didn’t say anything.

      • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        21 hours ago

        If they just wanted to follow the law, they could have left it at “don’t sell anything illegal” without all the extra “brand damage” nonsense.

      • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        63
        ·
        23 hours ago

        or any other material that the Corporation deems unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark

        which could be just anything.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Up to the third comma, yes, but all the rest seems to go beyond that pretty arbitrarily.

        When they say anything that “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”, and qualify that with “in the sole discretion of the Corporation” that just means “anything we don’t want to be associated with, and we will be the judge of that”.

        That’s what makes it so vague, how is a Merchant or an Acquirer supposed to know what Mastercard might find damaging to the goodwill? They have to guess, or use trial and error*. Most will just err on the side of caution, which means customers get blocked from even more purchases, just to be safe.

        * Or talk to Mastercard, which Valve apparently tried, but they wouldn’t respond.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          18 hours ago

          When they say anything that “may damage the goodwill of the corporation”,

          Looks like MasterCard is going to have to ban MasterCard because of all the damage they’ve done to MasterCard’s goodwill.

      • Annoyed_🦀 @lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Their rules seem to just follow the law

        Whose law? The US? UK? Netherlands? Japan? Or Singapore?

        That’s why it’s vague.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          21 hours ago

          It’s much worse than that. How they word it is “if it may damage the public image of mastercard”. And they don’t review the content, they review the means used to prevent the damage to their brand.

          So valve doesn’t even need to have anything that actually damage mastercard brand, it just need to be that mastercard is not comfortable enough with the measures used to prevent it.

          • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Like buying anything would actually damage the brand of Mastercard. It’s such a nonsensical excuse that I’m surprised nobody laughed in their face.

            • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Yeah, right up until assholes start posting “MASTERCARD SELLS SMUT INCEST HENTAI GAMES” on TikTok. Then it’s a problem, and MasterCard considers that damaging to the brand.

              • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                13 hours ago

                There’s really nothing stopping anyone from posting that right now. That’s the quality level of most of the online content nowadays.

                • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  That’s my point. They are posting it, and MasterCard does consider it harmful to the brand, so now we’re here.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        No, the rules don’t (that’s why it’s been fine for 7 years), and you used a derogatory term so cry harder about your downvotes.