Legal

CS2 loot boxes: what New York alleges as Valve seeks dismissal

New York accuses Valve of operating illegal gambling through loot boxes; Valve is asking the court to dismiss the complaint. The court’s scheduling order sets oral argument on that request for October. The record checked on October 8, 2026 contains no ruling on the merits.

The Veriloot team · Published on 9 October 2026 at 08:08

A hearing on dismissal, not a verdict

The case is before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, under index number 450952/2026. Despite its name, this is not the state’s highest court. The public court docket lists the case as active when checked.

Justice Nancy M. Bannon scheduled oral argument via Teams on Valve’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The order gives the date and time in this passage:

ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint (MOT SEQ 001) is adjourned to October 21, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. for oral argument, to be conducted via Teams

The March amended complaint, Valve’s May memorandum, New York’s June opposition and Valve’s July reply set out the parties’ arguments. The September scheduling order is the latest document shown in the docket we checked.

The central allegation: paying for a random, resellable reward

Attorney General Letitia James’s amended complaint challenges a system in which players pay to receive a randomly selected virtual item. This is a civil action based in part on alleged violations of New York’s gambling laws. It covers Counter-Strike, Team Fortress and Dota. New York argues that differences in rarity and the ability to resell rewards give the system the characteristics of gambling.

The complaint distinguishes the Steam market, where sales generate credit usable within Steam, from third-party platforms where items can be sold for cash. It alleges that Valve facilitates this market and earns revenue from keys and commissions. These are the plaintiff’s allegations, not findings adopted by the court.

New York also stresses addiction risks and minors’ exposure. We are not presenting historical market valuations cited in the complaint as current figures: they do not measure Valve’s annual revenue or today’s skin prices.

Valve compares cases with packs of trading cards

In its memorandum seeking dismissal, Valve argues that the buyer always receives an item. It therefore disputes that the system involves the stake or risk required by the legal definition being invoked. Valve compares cases with collectible card packs, whose contents and resale values vary.

Valve also disputes whether skins and Steam credit fit the specific statutory categories of value at issue. That is not the same as claiming skins have no resale value. Its argument concerns the legal classification.

Its July reply also raises fair notice, freedom of expression and separation of powers. Valve argues that specific regulation is a matter for the legislature. New York’s opposition responds, among other points, that always receiving an item does not rule out an economic loss. The court must consider these competing positions.

What New York wants, and what has not been awarded

The amended complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the alleged violations of New York law, restitution for affected consumers, damages, disgorgement and a fine. These are requested remedies listed at the end of the pleading. They are not penalties already imposed.

The scheduling order does not remove items from players’ inventories. It does not declare every case illegal across the United States or establish automatic refunds for players in France. This is an action brought by New York against Valve, not a worldwide ruling on skin trading.

Keep the court case separate from a skin’s market price

Buying a particular skin means choosing an identified item; opening a case involves a random reward. That distinction helps explain New York’s allegation. our CS2 skin buying guide explains how to check the exact variant and fees when comparing offers.

We have not measured a price effect from this litigation. A price movement during the case would not, by itself, establish causation. The next useful update is a new court filing, followed by a careful reading of what it actually decides.