US federal court temporarily blocks $110 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger

A federal judge in Oakland, California, issued a temporary injunction on Monday halting the planned $110 billion merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed on 13 July by a coalition of 12 state attorneys general, led by California, who argued that allowing the deal to close would cause irreparable harm to competition in the film and television industries.

The court's decision

Judge Araceli Martonez-Olguin found that the states had convincingly demonstrated the merger could unlawfully restrict competition. The injunction prevents the companies from finalizing the transaction at least until a hearing scheduled for 3 August, when the court will decide whether to extend the block for the duration of the lawsuit, which could last many months. Warner Bros. Discovery shares fell as much as 4% in Monday afternoon trading following the news.

Today's decision is an important victory for all who would suffer from this merger. I look forward to continuing the fight.

The antitrust arguments

The coalition of 12 states argued that the combined entity would become a media giant capable of raising prices across film and television and stifling competition. The lawsuit also warned that after closing, Paramount could begin cutting jobs and sharing confidential information with Warner Bros. Discovery, actions that would be difficult to reverse if the merger were later found illegal. The states sought to block the deal until the court could fully review the case.

Paramount's defense

Paramount pushed back, calling the complaint a distortion of established antitrust law. A company spokesperson said the firm would continue to vigorously defend the agreement, adding that the evidence would show the states' arguments are baseless because the relevant markets and alleged anticompetitive effects do not reflect modern market realities. Paramount also argued that delaying the transaction would primarily harm entertainment industry workers, who have faced disruption for several years. The company reiterated its commitments to maintain two separate film studios, produce at least 30 films annually, preserve a 45-day theatrical exclusivity window, and continue working with independent producers.

We are confident that the evidence will show that the state attorneys general's antitrust arguments are baseless, because the relevant markets and the allegations of anticompetitive effects have no basis in contemporary market realities.

Political and industry pushback

The court ruling drew swift political reactions. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer praised the decision on X, stating that the merger should never have been approved and calling it a step toward destroying press freedom and democracy. He argued the deal would be bad for entertainment workers and American consumers, and described it as a gift to President Donald Trump and his biggest donors, who he said aim to turn one of the nation's largest news stations into a mouthpiece.

This merger should never have been approved. It is a step toward destroying press freedom and democracy.

The Writers Guild of America filed its own lawsuit last week, arguing the merger would harm film and television screenwriters across the United States. Paramount countered that the combined company would expand opportunities for writers, not limit them. Cinema owners have also protested, fearing fewer films and reduced choice for audiences.

What comes next

1. Jul 13, 2026Coalition of 12 state attorneys general files lawsuit to block the merger
2. Jul 20, 2026Federal judge issues temporary injunction halting the deal
3. Jul 22, 2026European Commission deadline for merger decision
4. Aug 3, 2026Court hearing on whether to extend the block during the lawsuit

The merger, which would combine major film studios, streaming platforms, and television channels including CBS, CNN, and Poland's TVN, received shareholder approval from Warner Bros. Discovery in April. The US Department of Justice cleared the deal in mid-June, rejecting federal antitrust concerns. Several other countries have also approved the transaction, but the European Commission is still reviewing it, with a new decision deadline set for 22 July. The outcome of the 3 August hearing will determine whether the deal remains frozen for the duration of the states' lawsuit.