REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| Introduction | [1] | |
| The witness | [10] | |
| Valve's provision of video games to consumers | [13] | |
| The process of installing Steam and purchasing a video game | [13] | |
| The Steam games | [24] | |
| The operation of the Steam servers | [29] | |
| Valve's SSAs and Refund Policies | [39] | |
| Sections 18(1) and 29(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law | [42] | |
| The terms of ss 18(1) and 29(1)(m) | [42] | |
| The dependency of the representations upon s 54 | [44] | |
| The integers of ss 18(1) and 29(1)(m) | [51] | |
| (1) Issue 1: The proper law of Division 1, Part 3-2 (Chapter 3) of the Australian Consumer Law | [54] | |
| The terms of s 67 | [54] | |
| The meaning of the "proper law of a contract" | [57] | |
| The law which has the closest and most real connection to the SSA is Washington State | [72] | |
| Section 67(b) prevents Valve relying upon Washington State law | [85] | |
| Reasons why s 67 does not limit Division 1 of the Australian Consumer Law | [90] | |
| (i) The text of s 67 is contrary to Valve's submission | [91] | |
| (ii) The context of s 67 is contrary to Valve's submission | [101] | |
| (iii) The history and purpose of s 67 is contrary to Valves submission | [107] | |
| (iv) The policy of the Australian Consumer Law is contrary to Valve's submission | [116] | |
| Conclusion on the first issue | [125] | |
| (2) Issue 2: Whether there was a "supply of goods" | [126] | |
| The proper approach to the definitions of goods and services | [127] | |
| The application of the definitions | [135] | |
| (3) Issue 3: Whether Valve's conduct was in Australia or whether Valve carries on business in Australia | [158] | |
