A PYMNTS Company

Iowa, Montana Ask Supreme Court to Halt Paramount Merger Challenge

By  |  August 27, 2026
Paramount+, streaming, advertising

Iowa and Montana have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a multistate antitrust challenge to Paramount Skydance Corp.’s planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing that the litigation threatens a transaction they say would benefit consumers and the broader economy.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The two states are seeking to stop California and other state attorneys general from pursuing their case against the combination, according to Law360, which reported on the Supreme Court filing Wednesday. Iowa and Montana characterize the opposing states’ lawsuit as politically driven and contend that the transaction is procompetitive.

    The unusual Supreme Court request adds another layer of state-level conflict to a major media transaction already facing an antitrust fight. Law360 reported that the dispute involves Paramount Skydance’s proposed purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, whose assets include Warner Bros. and CNN.

    Rather than simply joining the existing litigation on the side of the companies, Iowa and Montana are asking the justices to exercise the Supreme Court’s authority over disputes between states. Their position is that the states challenging the transaction are using antitrust enforcement in a way that harms the economic interests of residents outside their borders.

    According to the filing described by Law360, Iowa and Montana maintain that the opposing attorneys general are attempting to use the courts to block a lawful media transaction for political reasons. They are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would prevent those states from obtaining an order stopping the merger.

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source

    Related: California AG Says No Paramount Settlement Talks Scheduled

    The filing places competing views of state antitrust authority before the nation’s highest court. California and its partners are pursuing their challenge on competition grounds, while Iowa and Montana argue that one group of states should not effectively determine national economic policy for other states by blocking an interstate transaction.

    The underlying litigation has already produced a significant setback for the companies. A federal judge in California granted temporary relief against the transaction in July, leaving the antitrust dispute headed toward further proceedings.

    The Supreme Court filing also underscores the increasingly complicated legal landscape surrounding large media combinations. State attorneys general can pursue antitrust claims independently of federal enforcement agencies, creating the possibility that transactions can face challenges even when other government authorities take a different view of their competitive effects.

    Law360 identified the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Attorney General’s Office and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office among the government agencies connected to the dispute. The publication also identified Paramount-related Skydance Media, Warner Bros. Discovery, Warner Bros., CNN and Netflix among companies relevant to its coverage.

    The Supreme Court has not yet resolved Iowa and Montana’s request. The filing means the justices must first confront whether the dispute is one the court should hear directly before reaching the broader disagreement over the merger and the authority of states seeking to block it.

    Source: Law 360