Judge denies Paramount+ subscribers a preliminary injunction against the $110 billion Warner Bros. merger
A judge denied Paramount+ subscribers a preliminary injunction against the $110 billion Warner Bros. Discovery merger. She ruled on standing, not on whether the deal is legal. Twelve state attorneys general get their hearing Friday morning in front of the same judge.
Paramount won one Thursday. It was the one it was supposed to win.
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín denied a group of Paramount+ subscribers a preliminary injunction to block the $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.
She did not rule that the merger is legal. She ruled that these plaintiffs hadn’t shown they could bring the case.
What the judge actually said
“It’s extraordinary preliminary relief, and plaintiffs failed to submit a single item of evidence in support of the motion,” Martínez-Olguín said from the bench.
Then: “Moreover, I have some serious doubts about plaintiffs’ standing to pursue these antitrust claims.”
The subscribers sued in April, arguing they’d faced price hikes and might lose viewing options. They brought no evidence to the hearing. The judge is taking Paramount’s motion to dismiss under advisement.
Legal reporter Eriq Gardner read it about right: “Doesn’t say much about state AG case, but Paramount probably feeling ok about judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin at this moment.”
Today is the real one
Twelve state attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, filed their own antitrust suit Monday. Their temporary restraining order hearing is Friday morning — in front of the same judge.
They don’t have the standing problem. States sue as law enforcers.
Their argument: the combined company would control 27% of wide-release theatrical distribution, 30% of the anticipated-blockbuster submarket, and 27% of the basic cable bundle. They say that means leverage over theaters and cable carriers, higher prices, and less content.
Paramount’s filing calls it “one of the weakest merger challenges in modern antitrust history” and argues “the merger is procompetitive, not anticompetitive.”
Paramount is fighting on four fronts
The subscribers were one of four.
The 12 state AGs are the big one. The WGA sued Tuesday, arguing the deal gives the merged company “both the incentive and the ability to lower costs by suppressing writers’ wages and reducing output.” And a Paramount shareholder filed a derivative suit Wednesday against the Ellisons and the board.
Paramount also got Judge P. Casey Pitts recused from the state case over an “appearance of bias,” citing his prior work as longstanding labor counsel for the WGA. That’s how the AGs ended up in front of Martínez-Olguín in the first place.
Federal approval isn’t necessarily a shield
The merger already has DOJ clearance and most other regulatory approvals. David Ellison says it’s on track to close by the end of the third quarter.
That’s less protective than it sounds. A federal judge put the Nexstar-Tegna merger on hold this year despite federal approvals, siding with state AGs and DirecTV. Nexstar’s appealing, and the delay is running months, possibly into next year.
States have already beaten a federally-blessed merger once this year. That’s the whole reason Friday matters.
Paramount won the case with no evidence in it. The one with the evidence is this morning.
Want More Clownfish TV?
This article was brought to you in part by The Reefers of more.clownfishtv.com. Free subscribers get articles like this one in their inbox. Paid subscribers get the full Clownfish TV podcast feed, livestreams, and members-only episodes that never hit YouTube.
D/REZZED is part of Clownfish TV. For more news, views, and rants on gaming, tech, and pop culture, watch @ClownfishTV on YouTube and find the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and iHeart.
Article compiled and edited by Derek Gibbs (entertainment editor) and the Clownfish TV newsroom.
Hat Tips:
Variety, Deadline, and TheWrap (July 16, 2026), verified the ruling — Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín denying a group of Paramount+ subscribers a preliminary injunction against the $110 billion Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger, her statements that “it’s extraordinary preliminary relief, and plaintiffs failed to submit a single item of evidence in support of the motion” and that she has “some serious doubts about plaintiffs’ standing to pursue these antitrust claims,” the April filing alleging price hikes and lost viewing options, and her taking Paramount’s motion to dismiss under advisement
Deadline, TheWrap, and legal reporter Eriq Gardner (July 2026), verified the state case — twelve attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta filing an antitrust suit Monday in the Northern District of California with a temporary restraining order hearing set for Friday morning, their claims that the merged company would control 27% of wide-release theatrical distribution, 30% of the anticipated-blockbuster submarket and 27% of the basic cable bundle leading to increased leverage, higher consumer prices and reduced output, Paramount’s opposition filing calling it “one of the weakest merger challenges in modern antitrust history” and arguing “the merger is procompetitive, not anticompetitive,” and Gardner’s assessment that the subscriber ruling “doesn’t say much about state AG case”
Deadline and Variety (July 2026), verified the wider litigation and precedent — the WGA’s Tuesday suit arguing the merger would give the combined entity “both the incentive and the ability to lower costs by suppressing writers’ wages and reducing output,” a Paramount shareholder’s Wednesday derivative suit against the Ellisons and the board, Paramount successfully seeking the recusal of Judge P. Casey Pitts over an “appearance of bias” given his prior role as longstanding labor counsel for the WGA, the merger holding DOJ and most other regulatory approvals with Paramount targeting a third-quarter close, and the Nexstar-Tegna merger being placed on hold by a federal judge siding with state attorneys general and DirecTV despite federal approvals