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.

  • 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
      ·
      16 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
          ·
          8 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.

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

                    You really buy that?

                    Valve asked mastercard directly.

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

                    Even moreso when that partner is citing mastercard terms.

                    May not have been mastercards mouth, but it was LITERALLY their words.

                    If they had something to add, they had their chance. They’re only officially saying anything now that they have to.