Warner Bros. Discovery–Paramount Merger Paused Until Court Ruling or June 1, 2027

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Friday that Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance have agreed not to close their proposed $110 billion merger until either a court rules on the states’ antitrust challenge or June 1, 2027, whichever comes first, effectively putting the biggest proposed Hollywood combination on hold for months as the case moves forward.

The practical effect is broad. Under a stipulation filed July 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, the companies cannot complete the transaction or begin combining their businesses while the litigation is pending. The filing says: “The transaction … shall not close, be consummated, or otherwise be completed and Defendants will not take any steps … to integrate or consolidate their operations pursuant to the Transaction until the earlier of (1) five days after the merits determination in these matters, or (2) June 1, 2027.” If the court ultimately rules for the states, Bonta’s office said, the merger would remain blocked pending appeal.

The agreement changes the immediate posture of the case. Bonta is leading a 12-state coalition that sued on July 13, 2026, under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust law that bars acquisitions whose effect may be to substantially lessen competition. On July 20, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted the states a temporary restraining order pausing the deal. Friday’s stipulation supersedes the accelerated schedule for a preliminary injunction, including a hearing that had been set for early August. If there is no merits determination by June 1, 2027, the states may ask the court for a preliminary injunction at that point.

The pause matters beyond courtroom scheduling because the case involves what California has described as the largest merger in Hollywood history, and because it is moving ahead despite federal regulators declining to challenge the transaction. The states say the combination would unite two major Hollywood film distributors and major owners of cable channels. The companies, in arguments made elsewhere, have said the deal would help them compete at scale in a media business shaped by large streaming and technology rivals.

Bonta cast the lawsuit in broader competition terms. “Our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” he said in a press release announcing the agreement.

In their lawsuit, the states allege the merger would substantially lessen competition in three markets: wide-release theatrical film distribution, anticipated blockbuster theatrical film distribution, and the licensing of basic cable television channels. Those claims have not yet been decided on the merits, and the stipulation does not resolve them. It instead preserves the status quo while the court considers the states’ challenge.

The case also highlights an unusual split among regulators. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division said on June 12 that it had closed its investigation and would not sue to stop the merger. “The Division has completed its analysis of the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. and determined based on the evidence received in its investigation that the transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers …” the department said at the time.

More recently, the European Commission approved the transaction on July 22. But that clearance did not end the U.S. state case, which remains active in federal court in California. For now, there is no merits ruling, and the proposed merger is paused rather than permanently blocked.