Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield formally withdrew the state’s demand for records and a related motion to delay the $110 billion merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. The withdrawal, filed Friday in Multnomah County Court, ends a localized attempt to stall the media transaction.
The state previously sought a 60-day injunction, claiming Paramount withheld internal regulatory documents codenamed “Project Warrior.” Paramount rejected the assertion, arguing the demands resembled an invalid antitrust complaint and supplied 822,000 requested documents to state investigators before the withdrawal.
The sudden reversal comes shortly after Paramount’s legal team formally criticized the Oregon Department of Justice for overstepping its authority. Court filings show the company supplied an extensive cache of data, which included an additional 1.2 million documents from Warner Bros. Discovery. Following this pushback, Rayfield’s office withdrew the legal motion on Friday.
The now-abandoned Oregon probe targeted the political mechanics behind the transaction. State investigators scrutinized federal lobbying activities and ties between David Ellison’s father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, and the Trump administration.
How the Oregon Retreat Leaves California and New York in the Spotlight
Oregon’s exit does not clear the legal runway for the $110 billion transaction. State-level resistance is migrating to larger jurisdictions. California and New York recently hired outside legal counsel to prepare their own antitrust lawsuits aimed at blocking or delaying the merger.
These state-led efforts follow the U.S. Department of Justice’s highly unusual clearance of the deal on June 12. The federal DOJ issued a lengthy public statement praising the transaction’s pro-competitive benefits. The Wall Street Journal later reported that senior DOJ officials overruled career antitrust lawyers who were actively preparing a recommendation to challenge the merger.
With Oregon stepping aside, the legal burden now shifts to California and New York. Those states must argue they possess independent statutory authority to halt a corporate merger after federal regulators have already issued a favorable clearance.