New Mexico AG Joins 12-State Lawsuit Against $110B Warner Bros. Acquisition by Paramount Skydance

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has joined a multistate lawsuit challenging Paramount Skydance’s $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros., marking a significant escalation in antitrust scrutiny of the entertainment industry’s consolidation. The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general from 12 states, alleges the merger would reduce competition, harm consumers, and stifle innovation in media and entertainment. The case, led by California and New York, seeks to block the deal under federal and state antitrust laws.

The lawsuit argues that the merger would create a dominant media conglomerate with unprecedented control over film, television, and streaming platforms. Paramount Skydance, which already owns Paramount Pictures, MTV, and Nickelodeon, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets, including the Warner Bros. studio, HBO, and the Max streaming service. The combined entity would control a vast portfolio of content, including franchises like “Harry Potter,” “The Batman,” and “Game of Thrones,” according to court documents.

Torrez, a Democrat, cited concerns about “market dominance” and “consumer harm” in a statement announcing his involvement. “This merger threatens to consolidate power in the hands of a single company, limiting choices for viewers and creators alike,” he said. The lawsuit also highlights the potential for higher subscription fees and reduced access to diverse programming, citing similar antitrust cases against tech and media giants in recent years.

The 12 states involved in the lawsuit—California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Mexico—have collectively accused Paramount Skydance of violating Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which prohibits mergers that substantially lessen competition. The suit also alleges the deal would hinder the ability of smaller studios and platforms to compete, particularly in the streaming sector.

Paramount Skydance has not yet issued a public response to the lawsuit. However, the company has previously defended the merger as a necessary step to remain competitive in a rapidly evolving media landscape. In a statement released in May 2026, Paramount Skydance CEO Jim Gianopulos said the deal would “deliver greater value to consumers and creators by combining two of the world’s most iconic entertainment brands.”

The case comes amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of major media mergers. In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) blocked a proposed merger between Paramount and Skydance, citing antitrust concerns. The current lawsuit, however, is led by state attorneys general rather than federal regulators. Legal experts note that state-led antitrust actions have become increasingly common in recent years, particularly in cases where federal agencies have not pursued litigation.

The outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the entertainment industry. If successful, the case might set a precedent for challenging other large media consolidations, including potential future mergers between streaming services or content producers. It also raises questions about the role of state attorneys general in shaping antitrust policy, as their efforts often complement or conflict with federal enforcement.

The case is expected to face legal challenges from Paramount Skydance, which may argue that the merger would not harm competition. The company could also seek to delay the lawsuit through procedural motions, a strategy commonly used in high-profile antitrust cases. A resolution could take years, as such cases often involve complex economic analyses and court battles.

The involvement of New Mexico’s attorney general underscores the growing bipartisan concern over corporate consolidation in the media sector. While Torrez is a Democrat, the lawsuit includes states led by both Democratic and Republican governors, reflecting a rare area of agreement on antitrust issues. This alignment may strengthen the case, as it demonstrates broad regulatory concern over the merger’s potential impacts.

The lawsuit also highlights the evolving role of state attorneys general in antitrust enforcement. Historically, federal agencies like the FTC and Department of Justice (DOJ) have been the primary enforcers of antitrust laws. However, recent years have seen states take a more active role, particularly in cases involving tech and media companies. This trend has been driven by frustrations with federal regulatory delays and a desire to address local economic concerns.

As the case moves forward, it will be closely watched by industry stakeholders, including content creators, streaming platforms, and consumers. The outcome could influence future mergers and regulatory approaches to media consolidation. For now, the lawsuit remains a key test of the states’ ability to challenge major corporate deals in the absence of federal action.