California Considers Hiring Top Tech Litigator for Paramount Antitrust Challenge

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office met with trial lawyer Robert Van Nest on Friday to discuss his possible participation in a lawsuit that could block Paramount Global’s $110 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery. No decision has been reached, but the states plan to file the complaint within the next month, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The proposed action would bring Van Nest, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters who has represented major technology firms in high-profile litigation, against Paramount’s legal team, which includes antitrust specialists Jeffrey Kessler and former U.S. antitrust official Makan Delrahim.

The coalition, led by California, includes Democratic and Republican attorneys general from states such as New York, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Connecticut and Tennessee. The states have identified theatrical distribution, streaming and news as markets that could be affected by the merger, though the precise claims remain under development.

Regulators in the United Kingdom have opened a probe into the deal, with an initial deadline of Aug. 7 to decide whether to launch a more detailed investigation. Other potential challengers include the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Communications Commission, the European Union and consumer groups.

"We continue to engage constructively with regulators, including State Attorneys General, and are always prepared to address legitimate, clearly articulated antitrust concerns," a Paramount spokesperson said, adding that the company believes the transaction is pro-competitive.

"The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do not have any updates to share at this time," a spokesperson for Bonta said.

Van Nest is known for representing Google in the Oracle lawsuit over Android code, OpenAI in copyright-related cases, and Qualcomm in a major antitrust trial. Earlier this year, California allocated $14.3 million for antitrust litigation, citing concerns that reduced federal oversight could leave consumers vulnerable to anti-competitive practices.