A federal judge just threw a wrench into one of the biggest media shake-ups in years. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin (Biden) temporarily blocked Paramount Skydance's $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, giving a coalition of 12 state attorneys general a short-term win in their fight to kill the deal.
The temporary restraining order lasts 14 days - half the 28 days the states had requested - and prevents Paramount from closing the transaction that would combine two historic Hollywood studios, two major streaming services (Paramount+ and Max), and significant news assets under David Ellison, son of Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading the charge, argues the merger would "extinguish competition" in key areas: wide theatrical film releases, big blockbuster distribution, and the market for basic cable channels. The states put numbers on it, alleging the combined company would control 27 percent of wide-release theatrical distribution, 30 percent of anticipated blockbusters, and 27 percent of the basic cable bundle. In plain terms, they say it would mean higher prices, lower quality, and less choice for theaters, cable providers, and viewers everywhere. The states claim it violates Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, the classic law aimed at stopping deals that substantially lessen competition. All 12 attorneys general are Democrats.
Paramount is firing back hard. The company calls the lawsuit one of the weakest merger challenges in modern antitrust history, notes it already has DOJ clearance plus approvals from places like Australia and China, and vows to fight vigorously. They argue the states are ignoring the brutal competitive realities of today's media landscape, where streaming giants, tech platforms, and cord-cutting have upended everything.
The DOJ signoff came after its antitrust division closed an eight-month review that examined more than two million documents - concluding the deal could strengthen competition across streaming, traditional television, and theatrical distribution. State attorneys general retain independent authority to sue regardless.
There's real urgency for Paramount: they're on the hook for a "ticking fee" of 25 cents per Warner Bros. share every quarter if the deal doesn't close by September 30. That works out to roughly $7 million a day, or more than $600 million per quarter - serious money.
If it goes through, David Ellison would control an entertainment behemoth spanning film, TV, streaming, and news.
This state lawsuit is the biggest threat so far, but it's not the only one. The EU is reviewing it, the UK culture secretary is considering intervention over media concentration worries, the Writers Guild has its own antitrust suit over wages and jobs, and consumers have challenged the streaming combination (though that effort was denied an injunction).
There's also a political undercurrent. Larry Ellison has been an ally of President Trump, who has publicly pushed for new ownership of CNN and recently praised the family. David Ellison has already started shaking things up at CBS News, bringing in Bari Weiss to revamp "60 Minutes" and the evening broadcast.
For now, the merger is in limbo. Expect intense legal wrangling over the next couple of weeks as Paramount pushes to get it back on track and the states try to build their case for a longer block. In an industry already disrupted by streaming wars and cord-cutting, this battle is about who gets to dominate the next era of Hollywood and media.
Tyler Durden Mon, 07/20/2026 - 13:10While it seems like common sense that living in a state should be a prerequisite to voting there, the Republican National Committee is suing six states to stop them from doing so.
Fresh off a court win in North Carolina, the RNC has filed lawsuits against Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Jersey, Virginia, and Nebraska, each targeting a version of the same loophole. In these states, a person who has never set foot as a resident within their borders can still cast an absentee ballot there, often because a parent or legal guardian once lived in the state decades ago.
"If you've never lived in a state, you shouldn't be voting in its elections," RNC Chairman Joe Gruters told the Daily Signal.
"The RNC already put a stop to this unconstitutional loophole in North Carolina, and we're taking Nebraska, Colorado, Nevada, and New Jersey to court to do the same," Gruters added,
"We'll keep fighting to ensure elections are only decided by legal residents."
The mechanism behind this quirk traces back to federal guidance for overseas voting. According to the Federal Voting Assistance Program website, "In some states, U.S. citizens who were born abroad—and have never resided in the United States—are eligible to vote absentee." Several states extended that logic further than Congress likely intended, allowing people who were born overseas and never lived stateside at all to vote based on a parent's old address.
The RNC is not coming after military voters or diplomats. The committee says it firmly supports the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), the decades-old law that lets service members and foreign service officers vote from wherever the government has stationed them. To secure legal standing in each state, the RNC is partnering with the relevant state party, a candidate, or both.
The North Carolina case set the template. In June, the Wake County Superior Court struck down a state law permitting people born overseas who had never lived in North Carolina to vote there anyway, handing the RNC a win over the state elections board and establishing that these arrangements are vulnerable to a straightforward constitutional challenge.
Nevada is shaping up as the marquee fight of the current round. The RNC has joined the state Republican Party and Republican secretary of state nominee Jim Marchant in challenging a law that allows people who never lived in Nevada, and in some cases never lived in the United States at all, to vote there based solely on a parent's or guardian's past residency. The plaintiffs argue the arrangement violates Nevada's constitution, which requires voters to have "actually, as opposed to constructively" resided in the state. Constructive residency is a fittingly bureaucratic term for a system built on the honor of an ancestor's zip code.
Despite the commonsense nature of the lawsuit, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, a Democrat, called it "an attack on the voting rights of eligible U.S. citizens living abroad" and warned that unwinding the law could hurt military families, even though the RNC made it clear that’s not who their lawsuit is about. "They risk everything to defend our freedoms, including the fundamental right to vote, and Nevada has a responsibility to protect their access to the ballot and the rights of the families who serve alongside them,” he added.
"Children born overseas should not be punished because their parents served, worked, or were stationed outside the United States," Aguilar continued, saying, "Nevada will not turn its back on military families simply because their service took them away from home."
Despite Aguilar’s claims, the lawsuits actually target civilians with no service record and no residency claim beyond a relative's former mailing address, not the men and women stationed abroad under UOCAVA.
“People should have full faith and confidence in the system,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said last week. “What we want is to have elections be safe and secure. We want everybody who's eligible to vote to be able to vote. But I don't know why it's so hard. The question is, why do we have 150 lawsuits trying to make sure we protect democracy and try to make sure these elections are safe and secure? It's because the other side knows they'll do everything in their ability to hold on to power and control.”
Gruters added, “And that's why they're allowing tens of millions of illegals into the country, they want them to be able to eventually have voting rights, and so we've stopped, you know, non-citizens from voting. Some of our biggest wins is knocking them off the voting rules. But the work never ends.”
Democrats will do ANYTHING to gain power, including cheating.
That's why the RNC is fighting on the ground and in the courts across the country to secure our elections. pic.twitter.com/AuF7LR7HoC