Antitrust

State of play.

• State AGs have opened a second front on media consolidation, with 12 AGs suing to block the $110 billion Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger despite DOJ clearance, and a separate 13-state coalition securing a court ruling characterizing Nexstar's conduct in the TEGNA merger as "shocking" and "brazen" for violating a hold-separate order (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger, California AG Says Nexstar and Tegna Are Violating Court’s Merger Block).
• Paramount Skydance has bypassed the preliminary-injunction stage and moved directly to trial, accepting delay and cost exposure to avoid an early loss — a posture that keeps the $650 million quarterly ticking fee accruing and tests whether a full merits record can overcome state AG opposition to a federally cleared deal (→ Paramount Skydance Goes to Trial to Try to Save Its Warner Bros. Deal).
• The FTC, joined by Utah and California, has filed a multi-theory enforcement action against Hims & Hers, alleging health data sharing with Meta and Snap in violation of privacy commitments and charging subscription dark-pattern violations under ROSCA — the most concrete recent example of the FTC's consumer-fraud enforcement posture applied to digital health (→ FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices, FTC, California, and Utah Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices, FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data Sharing).
• California's PFAS fraudulent transfer theory has escalated, with a Second Amended Complaint targeting newly created Qnity Electronics and invoking the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act to reach post-spinoff asset movements — a theory that, if sustained, would consolidate liability across the DuPont corporate family (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
• For counsel advising clients in media, digital health, or corporate restructuring, the practical baseline is that state AG enforcement is operating as an independent and increasingly aggressive check on transactions and business models that federal regulators have cleared or declined to pursue.

Where things stand.

• State AGs are the dominant antitrust enforcement vector in media consolidation. The 12-state coalition challenging the Paramount–Warner Bros. deal directly contradicts the DOJ's June 2026 clearance, testing whether states can obtain injunctive relief against a federally approved transaction under the Clayton Act (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger). The Nexstar–TEGNA litigation has moved into contempt territory, with the court enforcing hold-separate obligations against alleged board-composition circumvention (→ California AG Says Nexstar and Tegna Are Violating Court’s Merger Block).
• FTC enforcement is concentrated on consumer-facing fraud, not structural merger review. Chairman Ferguson's posture emphasizes junk fees, subscription traps, and dark patterns; the Hims & Hers action is the most recent concrete filing under this framework, combining health-data privacy and ROSCA billing violations (→ FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices, FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data Sharing, FTC, California, and Utah Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices).
• The FTC's junk fee rule is in force and generating litigation. The Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, effective May 12, 2025, requires upfront total-price disclosure for live-event tickets and short-term lodging. Class actions and mass arbitrations alleging drip pricing have spiked, with exposures exceeding $10 million per case; California's SB 478 adds per-violation penalties .
• Surveillance pricing remains the fastest-moving antitrust-adjacent enforcement frontier. The FTC's Section 6(b) study is ongoing; more than 40 state bills targeting individualized algorithmic pricing have been introduced in 2026; the House Oversight Committee has issued formal document demands to travel and platform companies .
• State AGs are operating as an independent enforcement layer across sectors. Actions include the Washington AG suing Albertsons and Safeway for deceptive promotions, the DC AG targeting rental junk fees, the Louisiana AG securing a $45 million CVS settlement over PBM anticompetitive pricing, and 23 Republican AGs challenging credit rating agencies on ESG-linked antitrust grounds .
• Connecticut's AG has applied existing antitrust and consumer protection statutes directly to AI conduct, including algorithmic price-fixing and deceptive AI claims, without waiting for AI-specific legislation — a template other state AGs are positioned to follow .
• California's fraudulent transfer theory in PFAS litigation is expanding the perimeter of corporate restructuring liability. The Second Amended Complaint reaches a newly created spinoff, Qnity Electronics, and targets post-spinoff MOU amendments as additional liability-shifting mechanisms — a theory that will influence how restructuring counsel document and structure spinoffs in contamination-adjacent industries (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
• The CoStar–CREXi conflict-of-interest dispute is producing Ninth Circuit guidance on concurrent conflicts. Quinn Emanuel's disqualification for simultaneously representing both CoStar and CREXi in the same matter is now on appeal, with the question of whether the trial-level case proceeds in parallel creating strategic pressure on both sides (→ CREXi asks 9th Circuit to reverse Quinn Emanuel disqualification in CoStar case, CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).
• The FTC has proposed a policy statement asserting federal preemption of state AI accuracy mandates, framing ideological manipulation of AI outputs as an unfair or deceptive practice under Section 5 and targeting state laws like Colorado's AI Act as preempted (→ FTC Seeks Public Comment on AI Policy Statement Curbing Ideological Manipulation).

Latest developments.

• 12-state AG coalition files federal antitrust suit to block the $110 billion Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger, directly contradicting DOJ's June 2026 clearance (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger).
• Paramount Skydance bypasses preliminary-injunction hearing and moves to trial on the merits; trial schedule remains contested between the parties (→ Paramount Skydance Goes to Trial to Try to Save Its Warner Bros. Deal).
• California AG and 13-state coalition secure court ruling characterizing Nexstar's board maneuvers at TEGNA as "shocking" and "brazen" violations of the hold-separate order (→ California AG Says Nexstar and Tegna Are Violating Court’s Merger Block).
• FTC, Utah, and California file complaint against Hims & Hers alleging health data sharing with Meta and Snap and ROSCA subscription violations; Hims disputes the allegations (→ FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices, FTC, California, and Utah Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices, FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data Sharing).
• California AG files Second Amended Complaint in PFAS litigation targeting DuPont spinoffs including newly created Qnity Electronics under fraudulent transfer and voidable transactions theories (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
• CREXi petitions Ninth Circuit to reverse Quinn Emanuel disqualification; CoStar opposes stay of district court proceedings pending appeal (→ CREXi asks 9th Circuit to reverse Quinn Emanuel disqualification in CoStar case, CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).
• FTC proposes policy statement asserting Section 5 authority over AI output manipulation and preemption of state AI accuracy mandates; comment period closed July 31, 2026 (→ FTC Seeks Public Comment on AI Policy Statement Curbing Ideological Manipulation).

Active questions and open splits.

• Can state AGs block a merger that federal regulators have cleared? The Paramount–Warner Bros. suit tests whether a 12-state Clayton Act challenge can obtain injunctive relief against a DOJ-approved transaction — a question with no settled answer and enormous implications for deal certainty in media and other concentrated industries (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger).
• How far do hold-separate orders reach into corporate governance? The Nexstar–TEGNA contempt posture tests whether board composition and governance decisions during pending litigation can constitute a violation of a hold-separate injunction — and what remedies courts will impose when they find circumvention (→ California AG Says Nexstar and Tegna Are Violating Court’s Merger Block).
• Does the Hims & Hers complaint define the FTC's enforcement standard for health-data sharing with ad platforms? The complaint's theory — that pixel-based tracking technologies transmitting health data to Meta and Snap violate FTC Act Section 5 and ROSCA — has not been litigated to judgment; the scope of the "privacy commitment" that triggers liability is unsettled (→ FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data and Billing Practices, FTC, Utah, and California Sue Hims & Hers Over Health Data Sharing).
• Can California's voidable transactions theory reach post-spinoff corporate reorganizations in PFAS litigation? The Second Amended Complaint's extension to Qnity Electronics and post-spinoff MOU amendments is a novel application of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; if sustained, it creates a template for reaching newly created entities in any restructuring designed to shed environmental liability (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
• Where does lawful dynamic pricing end and unlawful surveillance pricing begin? The FTC and state legislators are drawing a line between market-condition pricing and consumer-data-driven individualized pricing, but no enforcement action has yet defined the boundary with precision — leaving companies using algorithmic pricing tools in a compliance gray zone .
• Does the FTC's proposed AI accuracy policy statement preempt state AI mandates? The FTC's assertion that ideological output manipulation violates Section 5 — and that state laws like Colorado's AI Act are preempted — has not been tested; the final policy statement's legal authority and preemptive scope are both unsettled (→ FTC Seeks Public Comment on AI Policy Statement Curbing Ideological Manipulation).
• How will the Ninth Circuit resolve the concurrent-conflict standard in CoStar–CREXi? The Quinn Emanuel disqualification turns on whether simultaneous representation of adverse parties in separate matters — as opposed to the same matter — triggers per se disqualification or a more flexible analysis; the Ninth Circuit's ruling will affect how large firms manage multi-client portfolios in overlapping commercial disputes (→ CREXi asks 9th Circuit to reverse Quinn Emanuel disqualification in CoStar case, CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).

What to watch.

• Whether the Paramount–Warner Bros. court sets a trial date before or after the September 30, 2026 merger closing deadline — and whether the $650 million quarterly ticking fee creates settlement pressure before trial.
• Whether the Nexstar–TEGNA court imposes contempt sanctions or board-composition remedies, which would establish the enforcement template for hold-separate violations in future media mergers.
• Whether the FTC finalizes the AI accuracy policy statement following the July 31 comment period and whether any state AG challenges the preemption theory in court.
• Whether the South Carolina federal court sustains California's voidable transactions theory against Qnity Electronics — a ruling that would accelerate similar claims in other PFAS and environmental liability restructurings.
• Whether the Ninth Circuit grants CREXi's stay request in the Quinn Emanuel disqualification appeal, and what the appellate panel signals about the concurrent-conflict standard at oral argument.
• Whether the FTC issues formal enforcement guidance or a final rule following the Section 6(b) surveillance pricing study — that guidance will define the compliance standard for algorithmic pricing across retail, hospitality, and platform sectors.