Ok, Google translate butchered the crap out of that one...
The gist of the article is that a consumer advocacy group is saying that Steam, or more specifically Valve, has done a disservice to purchasers.
Remember a few months back when the Steam terms of service updated? You either agreed to the new terms, or your account was suspended. None of this relates to automatic updates in games.
This group wants Valve to functionally freeze their terms of service, should consumers not like the new ones. On paper, this is a good idea. You still get access to your old games, under what you legally agreed to. It'd be like not having to sign your soul away when you install iTunes, because you signed up with revision 1.0.
Now that cold b**** reality walks in with a sledgehammer, eying your melon. Valve technically provides a service, not a product. If you read their wording, the Steam service is what you are agreeing to. Services are not required to allow you to keep anything once their contracts are terminated, and if they include the appropriate wording they can be changed with little or no input from the consumer. Not realizing this, they complain that people who have bought quite a few games would lose them if they did not agree to the new terms of service.
Derp?
It's sad to say, but Steam users don't buy games. Steam users buy access to software, that can be pulled by either the developer or Valve at any time. If you've got a problem with that then buy physical media only when you want games.
In short: "The author of this article fell of the stupid tree, hit every branch on the way down, landed on moron rock, and completely missed the point." You can quote me there.
This is a German who doesn't understand the weapons grade crazy that the Valve corporation works under, when in the USA legal system. I've found that it's always hard for foreigners to understand US laws, due in no small part to how stupid and contradictory some of them are.