Did the Warner Bros. Paramount Merger Go Through? How the $110bn Skydance Deal Cleared Regulators

Did the Warner Bros. Paramount merger go through? Yes: on 6 October 2026 Paramount Skydance completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, creating a combined company named Skydance that trades under the ticker SKYD. The deal, valued at about $110 billion on an enterprise basis, closed only after an eight-month federal investigation, a conditional clearance from the European Commission, a UK review that ran on both competition and media plurality tracks, a 12-state antitrust lawsuit resolved by court-approved consent decree, and a final emergency application to the US Supreme Court that was refused the night before closing. This analysis sets out who reviewed the transaction and what each authority decided, the remedies and commitments Paramount accepted, the litigation that nearly delayed it into 2027, the financing and Fitch's downgrade on closing, the political backdrop, and what M&A lawyers can take from one of the most closely contested media deals in years.

Did the Warner Bros. Paramount merger go through? The short answer

The merger closed on Tuesday 6 October 2026. Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders receive the $31 per share in cash agreed in February, and the merged group, which brings together the Paramount and Warner Bros. film studios, the Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services, CBS News and CNN, and cable networks including Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, TBS and TNT, now operates as Skydance. David Ellison is chairman and chief executive, with former Mattel chief executive Ynon Kreiz as co-chief executive, according to CBS News.

The final legal obstacle fell away less than a day before completion. On 5 October, Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency applications from the Ninth Circuit, denied an application by five consumers who had asked the Supreme Court to stop the deal closing while it considered their case. She gave no reasons. A week earlier, on 30 September, US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín had approved Paramount's settlement with the 12 state attorneys general who had sued to block the deal, which removed the last substantive barrier.

For readers who followed our July analysis of the multi-jurisdiction antitrust scrutiny, the outcome is the one that analysis anticipated: federal clearance did not end the process, and state and overseas reviews shaped both the timing and the final terms. What changed since July is the scale of the state challenge, the concessions Paramount had to give to settle it, and the debt load the combined group now carries.

How the deal came together: from a Netflix contract to $31 a share

Paramount won Warner Bros. Discovery only after the target had signed with a rival. CNBC's timeline of the contest shows that Warner Bros. Discovery rejected several Paramount approaches in late 2025, opened a sale process, and on 5 December 2025 agreed to sell its studios and streaming business to Netflix in a deal worth nearly $83 billion on an enterprise basis. Paramount answered on 8 December with a hostile, all-cash tender offer for the whole company at $30 per share, sued Warner Bros. Discovery and its chief executive in January 2026 for more information about the board's process, and in February added a quarterly "ticking fee" and an offer to cover the $2.8 billion break fee owed to Netflix. When Paramount raised its price to $31, Netflix declined to match, and the parties signed a definitive merger agreement on 27 February 2026. Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders approved the deal on 23 April.

The headline terms are in the parties' 27 February announcement filed with the SEC: $31 per share in cash, valuing Warner Bros. Discovery at $81 billion in equity value and $110 billion in enterprise value, with no financing condition. If the deal had not closed by 30 September 2026, shareholders would receive $0.25 per share for each quarter of delay, measured daily. CNBC estimated that fee at about $650 million in cash for every quarter the deal remained open. That figure explains a good deal of the urgency that followed, as the litigation section below shows.

Advisers named in the announcement included Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Latham & Watkins for Paramount, with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz among the legal counsel to Warner Bros. Discovery. For lawyers advising on contested public takeovers, the sequence is a reminder that a signed deal with one bidder does not end a sale process where a rival is prepared to go hostile and fund the break fee. Advisers who handle this kind of work can be found through our corporate, commercial and M&A directory.

Who approves the Paramount merger? The clearance map

No single regulator approved the deal. Paramount needed clearance under merger control, foreign direct investment and media plurality regimes across dozens of countries, and by the end of September Variety reported that the deal had been cleared by regulators in 68 jurisdictions worldwide. Paramount's own release on the EU decision listed competition clearances in the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Kuwait, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Ukraine and from the COMESA Competition Commission, and foreign direct investment clearances in ten countries, along with unconditional approvals under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation and Austria's media merger control regime.

The table below sets out the principal decisions, in date order.

Authority	Regime	Date	Outcome	Conditions
New Zealand Commerce Commission	Voluntary merger clearance	5 June 2026	Did not intend to consider further	None
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission	Merger control	9 June 2026	Merger may be consummated after a 14-day waiting period	None
US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division	Clayton Act review	12 June 2026	Investigation closed, no enforcement action	None
European Commission	EU Merger Regulation, Phase I	22 July 2026	Cleared with commitments	Exit from UIP in the EEA; 10-year distribution restrictions
UK Competition and Markets Authority	Enterprise Act 2002, Phase 1	6 August 2026	Cleared, no reference to Phase 2	None
UK Culture Secretary	Enterprise Act media public interest regime	6 August 2026	No intervention notice issued	Legally binding deed of undertaking
US District Court, Northern District of California	12-state Clayton Act suit	30 September 2026	Consent decree approved	Five-year behavioural commitments with divestiture backstops
US Supreme Court (Justice Kagan)	Emergency application by private plaintiffs	5 October 2026	Application denied	None

The dates for New Zealand and Australia come from a Paramount filing reported by The Hollywood Reporter, which quoted the ACCC's conclusion that the deal was unlikely to substantially lessen competition in the wholesale supply of films for theatrical release in Australia.

The US Department of Justice: an unconditional closing statement

The federal answer was a clean clearance. On Friday 12 June 2026 the Antitrust Division issued a statement closing its investigation, concluding that the transaction was not likely to harm competition or American consumers in three areas: streaming video on demand, linear television, and the development, production and distribution of films for theatrical release. The Division said its career staff had run an eight-month investigation, receiving more than two million documents from over 80 custodians, substantial data, and submissions from third parties across the industry.

Two features of the statement matter to practitioners. First, the Division explained that it had reviewed both the Netflix agreement and Paramount's competing offer, so its work on Warner Bros. Discovery began before Paramount had signed, and it said it had benefited from the contrasting visions in the two proposals. Second, the statement records that state attorneys general participated in the federal investigation because the parties gave voluntary confidentiality waivers, which allowed the Division and the states to share information and the states to attend depositions. Those waivers did not prevent the states reaching a different conclusion a month later, which is the central lesson of this deal for US merger planning.

The Division's framing was also unusually expansive. It cited its history with Warner Bros. transactions, from AOL and Time Warner to AT&T and Time Warner and Warner Bros. and Discovery, and said the record suggested the transaction would increase competition, with benefits for consumers and workers. That is a stronger statement than a bare clearance, and Paramount leaned on regulators' findings in its fight with the states, describing the later UK conclusions as exposing the states' "misguided and gerrymandered market definitions". The approach contrasts with the remedies the federal government has pursued in technology markets, such as the six-year monitor imposed on Google's ad tech business.

The European Commission: a Phase I clearance with film distribution remedies

Brussels cleared the deal, but not unconditionally. The transaction was notified on 2 June 2026, and on 22 July the Commission approved it under the EU Merger Regulation subject to commitments (case M.12278). Because commitments were offered in Phase I, the Commission had 35 working days rather than the standard 25 to reach its decision, and it did not open an in-depth Phase II investigation.

The Commission found that enough studios remained at the film production level, including Disney, Universal and Sony, smaller US studios and European producers, and that streaming and other competitors would continue to constrain the merged group across the audiovisual value chain, including in pay television channels for children. Its concern was narrower: theatrical film distribution in the EEA countries where Paramount distributes films jointly with Universal through their joint venture, United International Pictures (UIP). Adding Warner's films to that structure would, the Commission said, have produced high concentration and greater transparency, leading to worse rental and distribution terms for cinema operators.

To address that, Paramount committed to:

• Exit UIP in the EEA. Terminate its stake in UIP in the EEA within 13 months of closing.
• No joint distribution with Universal. For ten years, not agree with Universal to jointly co-distribute films in the EEA.
• No shifting of distributors. For ten years, not move Warner's films to a distributor shared with Universal or Disney in the 19 UIP countries in the EEA, nor move Paramount's films to Warner's distributor where that distributor also handles Universal or Disney.

An independent trustee will monitor implementation. Separately, the deal was cleared unconditionally under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which matters because part of the equity came from Gulf sovereign investors; our earlier explainer on how the EU regulations on foreign subsidies work sets out that regime. For comparison with Brussels' approach to digital markets, see our analysis of the Digital Markets Act and Google's search data obligations.

The UK: CMA clearance and a media plurality deed of undertaking

The UK reviewed the deal on two tracks and cleared it on both on the same day. The Competition and Markets Authority invited comments between 13 and 27 April, formally launched its Phase 1 inquiry on 9 June, and on 6 August cleared the anticipated acquisition, a day before its statutory deadline, publishing the full text of its decision on 17 August. According to City AM's reading of the published decision, the CMA estimated that the combined business would become the UK's largest theatrical film distributor with a share of between 20 and 30 per cent, but found that Universal and Disney each held similar shares, that Sony and smaller studios added further competition, and that Paramount and Warner Bros. were no closer competitors to each other than to their rivals. It also rejected concerns about streaming and children's television.

The second track was political. On 30 June the Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, told the parties she was minded to issue a public interest intervention notice on media plurality grounds, citing children's programming, editorial independence and news media. Paramount responded with assurances and then turned them into a legally binding deed of undertaking in the Secretary of State's favour. On 6 August the government announced it would not intervene, on the basis that the commitments protected the availability of diverse broadcasting and on-demand services and the distinct editorial identities of key UK news programmes. The commitments include:

• Linear and on-demand services. No consolidation of the combined group's UK linear channels with its on-demand services, which keep distinct editorial identities.
• Children's programming. Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network remain editorially distinct and continue to commission and acquire original UK children's content.
• News. Channel 5 News keeps its editorial independence, separate from CBS News and CNN International, and CNN International stays available in the UK.
• Channel 5. Channel 5 continues as a public service broadcaster, with more funding for news, children's programming and drama.

Paramount must provide annual statements of compliance. The government also signalled that it was considering wider powers, possibly through legislation, to protect plurality and British content across the creative industries, which UK media counsel should watch. UK advisers on media and competition questions are listed in our United Kingdom directory.

The state attorneys general lawsuit and the threat of a 2027 trial

The serious challenge came from the states. On 13 July 2026, a month after the federal clearance, 12 attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta sued in the US District Court for the Northern District of California to block the deal. The other plaintiff states were Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington. They alleged the merged group would control nearly a third of films and nearly a third of basic cable programming, harming cinemas, cable distributors and audiences, and focused on wide-release films, tentpole films and basic cable licensing.

The states quickly won the first round. Judge Martínez-Olguín granted a temporary restraining order freezing the transaction, finding that the states had raised serious questions about whether it would substantially lessen competition. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the court's reasoning turned on Paramount's anticipated 27 per cent share of wide-release theatrical distribution, a level at which the court said it could presume the merger likely to violate the antitrust laws. On 24 July Paramount agreed not to close until a ruling on the merits or 1 June 2027, whichever came first, describing the arrangement as a direct path to trial. The judge scheduled a trial to start on 2 March 2027.

That commitment put the ticking fee at the centre of the case. With roughly $650 million a quarter accruing from 30 September, every month of delay carried a real cost, and Paramount asked the court to require the states and the Writers Guild of America to post a bond of about $1.88 billion to cover its financial losses while the deal was on hold. The pressure ran both ways: in comments reported by TheWrap, Bonta later rejected suggestions that Paramount's threat to move its studio out of California, or calls to settle from state political figures, had influenced his decision, saying the turning point came when Paramount came to the table to negotiate in good faith. US litigators on these questions can be found through our California directory.

The consent decree: what Paramount promised the states

The settlement, announced on 21 September 2026 and approved on 30 September, is behavioural rather than structural. Bonta had sought divestitures, but the five-year consent decree imposes conduct commitments backed by penalties and divestiture triggers. TheWrap's analysis of the 32-page decree and Variety's report of the approval set out the main terms.

Commitment	What the decree requires	Consequence of breach
Theatrical output	At least 30 wide-release films a year for two years and 32 a year for the following three; at least half produced or co-produced by the company; 20% to be blockbusters	$30 million per missed film; possible forced sale of the 49% Miramax stake within 12 months
Theatrical windows	45-day window for wide-release films and 90 days before streaming	Enforced by the monitor and state committee
US production spending	At least $300 million a year, $1.5 billion over five years	Enforced by the monitor and state committee
Cable negotiations	Paramount and Warner Bros. cable networks negotiated separately with distributors, unless a distributor asks otherwise in writing	Divestiture of BET, Comedy Central, VH1, Smithsonian, Destination America and Science Channel within 120 days
Studio lots	No sale or closure of the Paramount or Warner Bros. lots in California for five years	Enforced by the monitor and state committee
News	Independent five-member board for CNN and CBS News editorial standards, set up within 180 days of closing	Reports to the board through a chief compliance officer
Workers	Honour collective bargaining agreements; $9.5 million a year for training; $5 million a year for an independent film fund	Enforced by the monitor and state committee

Approving the decree, Judge Martínez-Olguín wrote that it represented "a reasonable factual and legal resolution of the dispute" and pointed to its backstops requiring divestment of studios or cable channels if the company fails to comply. She did so over objections from the Block the Merger coalition, the League of United Latin American Citizens and a letter from Senator Cory Booker asking for an independent public interest review. California's position, put by a senior assistant attorney general at the hearing, was that the states did not want to block the deal permanently and that Warner Bros. Discovery would likely have sought another partner if it had been blocked. An independent monitor and a committee of five states will oversee compliance. Readers interested in how courts police long-running conduct remedies may also find our coverage of the Google Play Store class action useful on the private enforcement side.

Private challenges: subscribers, the Writers Guild and shareholders

Public enforcers were not the only litigants. The Writers Guild of America sued as well and settled after the states did; TheWrap reports its separate resolution includes a five-year layoff pause at CBS and a $17.5 million contribution to a health fund. A group of Paramount subscribers, viewers and cable customers, represented by Joseph Alioto, had sued in spring 2026 alleging the deal would throttle competition in streaming, news and theatrical distribution. The district court granted Paramount's motion to dismiss, expressed serious concerns about their standing, and refused their request for a temporary restraining order, citing what Deadline reported as their "repeated failures to advance any evidence". The Ninth Circuit also rejected them before Justice Kagan's refusal on 5 October.

A further claim targets the Ellisons personally. In July, a Paramount shareholder sued, alleging that David and Larry Ellison had cut an improper deal with President Trump to secure federal approval, including promises about CNN. A Paramount spokesperson said the suit recycled allegations already reported and addressed, and that no commitments had been made to any government body about CNN or any other news property, other than the goal of truth-based journalism. That claim is unresolved. Securities and governance litigation following large deals often runs for years; our report on the Fourth Circuit's Boeing class certification ruling shows how such claims can turn on procedural questions long after the transaction.

Financing and Fitch's downgrade on closing

Skydance starts life heavily leveraged. At signing, the transaction was funded by $47 billion of new equity at $16.02 per share, backed by the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners, and $54 billion of debt commitments from Bank of America, Citigroup and Apollo. Variety reported in June that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, Abu Dhabi's L'imad Holding Company and the Qatar Investment Authority were jointly putting up $24 billion, and on closing day it reported that RedBird had invested $4 billion in the combined company, with the Ellisons and RedBird holding all of the Class A voting stock.

On the day of completion, Fitch downgraded both companies' long-term issuer default ratings from BB+ to BB, citing materially higher leverage and significant execution and integration risks. Fitch expects total debt of about $87.5 billion, including $44.5 billion of first-lien secured debt and $12.4 billion of new second-lien secured debt, and estimates leverage of 7.8 times for fiscal 2026 after about $57 billion of acquisition debt, falling to 4.5 times in fiscal 2028 if synergies are delivered. It questioned the company's ability to achieve its $6 billion synergy target and said equity issuance or asset sales would be needed to reach net leverage of 3 times by 2029. It also noted that the consent decree commitments, while largely achievable, could constrain cost actions.

The structure shows how family and sponsor equity, bank and private credit commitments and sovereign co-investment now sit alongside regulatory risk in the largest media deals. Finance lawyers advising on similar structures can be found in our banking and finance directory.

The political dimension: Trump, CNN and the editorial board

Politics ran through the deal from start to finish. President Trump, who is friendly with both Ellisons, told reporters at the White House on closing day, as reported by Variety, that it was "a great merger. I'm glad they let it go." Variety also noted that the Justice Department had approved the deal in June without conditions. David Ellison argued in an August op-ed that the states' case was really about whether he could be trusted as steward of CNN, and he has pledged that CNN and CBS News journalists will answer to the facts rather than to any party.

The legal response to those concerns is procedural rather than structural. The consent decree's news board will be made up of five journalists with at least ten years' experience, no more than two from the same political party, chosen by the company's board. Critics have called that toothless, and Connecticut's attorney general William Tong, while signing the settlement, said he had pushed for a full divestiture of CNN and CBS News. In the UK, the deed of undertaking separately protects Channel 5 News and the availability of CNN International. The shareholder suit itself refers to Mr Trump's legal claims against CNN, and his litigation against broadcasters is not confined to the United States, as our report on Trump's defamation claim against the BBC describes.

What happens next: integration, layoffs and HBO Max

Integration starts now, and job cuts are coming. In a "Day 1" memo to staff, Ellison and Kreiz wrote that integrating two companies "will bring change, including difficult decisions that affect our workforce". The company has not said how many roles will go. Paramount is targeting more than $6 billion of annual cost savings over three years, and Variety cites a Los Angeles County report from August estimating that the merger could cost some 4,500 film and television jobs in Los Angeles alone over that period. Any such cuts must fit within the consent decree's protections, including reapplication rights for displaced employees and the WGA's layoff pause at CBS.

On streaming, Ellison has said that Paramount+ and HBO Max would become one following the transaction, and HBO's Casey Bloys has been named to run the combined streaming business. No timetable for a merged service has been announced. In the UK, any consolidation must respect the deed of undertaking not to merge linear channels with on-demand services, and in France the February deal announcement confirms Paramount will keep its windowing commitments; our coverage of the French SMAD streaming investment rules explains why that matters for streamers. Compliance deadlines also follow closing: the EEA exit from UIP within 13 months, the news board within 180 days, annual UK compliance statements and five years of state monitoring.

What M&A lawyers can learn about multi-jurisdiction clearance timelines

The clearest lesson is that federal clearance was the start, not the end. The deal signed on 27 February, cleared Washington on 12 June and Brussels on 22 July, but closed on 6 October only because the states settled. Practitioners are likely to draw several conclusions, framed here as commentary rather than rules:

• Plan for state attorneys general as independent enforcers. Confidentiality waivers that let states join a federal investigation can give them the evidence to sue on their own, as happened here a month after the federal closing statement.
• Price the delay, not just the deal. The ticking fee gave Paramount an incentive to settle and the states leverage; outside dates, ticking fees and reverse break fees should be modelled against realistic litigation timetables, including a trial a year after signing.
• Expect behavioural remedies with structural teeth. Both the EU commitments and the state decree used conduct obligations, monitors and trustees, with divestiture as the backstop rather than the remedy.
• Treat media plurality as a separate track. In the UK, the CMA's competition clearance and the Culture Secretary's public interest powers ran in parallel, and only binding undertakings avoided a referral.
• Map foreign investment and subsidy regimes early. Alongside the classic merger filings, the deal needed foreign direct investment clearances in ten countries and an EU foreign subsidies review, with Gulf sovereign investors in the equity.

The EU's Phase I with remedies took 35 working days from notification, while the UK process ran from April pre-notification to an August decision; the US state litigation alone threatened to push closing to mid-2027. Differences of that order are one reason deal teams may choose to sequence filings around the slowest regime rather than the largest market. When disputes over English-law transactions arise, they are typically heard in the specialist courts described in our explainer on the Chancery Division and the Business and Property Courts, and our guide to how EU cartel fines are calculated covers the enforcement exposure on the conduct side.

When to bring in specialist advisers

Few companies will attempt a deal of this scale, but the issues it raised arise in much smaller media, technology and entertainment transactions: overlapping distribution joint ventures, state law challenges after federal clearance, public interest interventions, and covenants that limit post-closing integration. Boards and general counsel weighing a contested or multi-jurisdiction deal should involve competition counsel before signing, so that filing strategy, remedies and timing protections are built into the agreement rather than negotiated under a restraining order. Specialist advisers can be found through our competition and antitrust directory and our technology, media and telecoms directory.

Frequently asked questions

Did the Warner Bros. Paramount merger go through?

Yes. Paramount Skydance completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on 6 October 2026, after a federal court approved its settlement with 12 states on 30 September and Justice Kagan refused an emergency application to halt it on 5 October. The combined company is called Skydance and trades as SKYD.

Who approves the Paramount merger?

Many authorities did. The US Justice Department closed its investigation on 12 June 2026, the European Commission cleared the deal with commitments on 22 July, and the UK's CMA and Culture Secretary cleared it on 6 August. Variety reported approvals in 68 jurisdictions, and a federal court approved the states' consent decree on 30 September.

What conditions did the EU impose on Paramount and Warner Bros.?

Paramount must end its stake in United International Pictures, its distribution joint venture with Universal, in the EEA within 13 months of closing. For ten years it may not co-distribute films with Universal in the EEA or move Warner or Paramount films onto distributors shared with Universal or Disney in the UIP countries. A trustee monitors compliance.

Why did the states sue to block the merger?

Twelve attorneys general led by California sued on 13 July 2026, alleging the deal would give the combined group nearly a third of films and basic cable programming, raising prices and reducing output. They won a temporary restraining order before settling in September for behavioural commitments rather than divestitures.

What did Paramount agree to in the settlement with the states?

Under a five-year consent decree, Skydance must release at least 30 wide-release films a year for two years and 32 a year for three more, spend $300 million a year on US production, negotiate cable channels separately, keep its California lots, and create an independent CNN and CBS News editorial board.

Can the Paramount Warner Bros. merger still be stopped?

Not in practice. The deal has closed, the district court and Ninth Circuit rejected the consumer plaintiffs, and Justice Kagan denied their emergency application. Remedies now lie in enforcing the consent decree, the EU commitments and the UK deed, which include divestiture backstops if the company breaches them.

What happens to HBO Max now Paramount owns Warner Bros.?

Ellison has said Paramount+ and HBO Max will become one service, and HBO's Casey Bloys will run the combined streaming business, but as of closing no timetable for combining the two services had been announced. In the UK, Paramount has undertaken not to consolidate its linear channels with its on-demand services.

Why did Fitch downgrade Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery?

Fitch cut both companies from BB+ to BB on 6 October 2026, citing materially higher leverage and integration risk. It expects about $87.5 billion of total debt and leverage of 7.8 times for fiscal 2026, and doubts the $6 billion synergy target can be met without asset sales or new equity.

Will there be layoffs after the Paramount Warner Bros. merger?

Yes. Ellison and Kreiz told staff on closing day that integration would bring difficult decisions affecting the workforce, without giving numbers. Paramount targets more than $6 billion of annual savings, and a Los Angeles County report estimated up to 4,500 local film and TV job losses over three years.

What did President Trump say about the merger?

On closing day Mr Trump told reporters the combined company would be great and that the Ellisons were terrific people, adding that he was glad the deal had been allowed to proceed. The Justice Department had cleared it without conditions in June. A shareholder suit alleging an improper arrangement with the administration, which Paramount disputes, has not been resolved.

Sources

1. US Department of Justice: Statement of the Antitrust Division on the closing of its investigation of the merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. (12 June 2026)
2. European Commission: Commission approves Paramount's acquisition of Warner, subject to conditions (22 July 2026)
3. Competition and Markets Authority: Paramount / Warner Bros. Discovery merger inquiry
4. UK Government: Public statement on the decision of no intervention on public interest grounds (6 August 2026)
5. SEC filing: Paramount to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, Exhibit 99.1 (27 February 2026)
6. Paramount press release: European Commission approves Paramount Skydance acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (22 July 2026)
7. CNBC: Paramount's hard-fought takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery closed Tuesday. Here's how we got here (6 October 2026)
8. CNBC: Paramount, WBD hit with lawsuit from 12 states, including California, to block merger (13 July 2026)
9. PBS News (AP): Paramount will delay closing Warner buyout for months while judge considers states' challenge (24 July 2026)
10. Variety: Paramount-Warner Bros. merger set to close next week after judge OKs settlement with state AGs (30 September 2026)
11. NBC News: Judge allows Paramount to close $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery (30 September 2026)
12. TheWrap: Breaking down the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger settlement (September 2026)
13. TheWrap: Rob Bonta defends the Warner Bros.-Paramount settlement (30 September 2026)
14. The Hollywood Reporter: Longshot bid to block Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger filed to Supreme Court (5 October 2026)
15. Washington Examiner: Justice Kagan denies last-minute bid to halt Paramount-Warner Bros. merger (5 October 2026)
16. Deadline: Supreme Court Justice denies last-minute effort to halt Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger (5 October 2026)
17. City AM: Paramount-Warner Bros deal faces sufficient competition, says CMA
18. The Hollywood Reporter: Paramount-Warner Bros. deal cleared in Australia, New Zealand (June 2026)
19. Variety: Paramount-Warner Bros. merger overseas: EU likely to give go-ahead, but another hurdle looms in the UK (25 June 2026)
20. Variety: UK approves Paramount-Warner Bros. merger (6 August 2026)
21. Variety: Paramount requests states and WGA be required to post $1.9 billion bond (August 2026)
22. TheWrap: Fitch downgrades Paramount, Warner Bros. Discovery credit ratings as merger closes (6 October 2026)
23. Variety: RedBird invested $4 billion to fund Paramount's Warner Bros. Discovery takeover (6 October 2026)
24. Variety: Donald Trump praises newly merged Paramount-Warner Bros. (6 October 2026)
25. Variety: Skydance CEOs acknowledge layoffs will be coming after Paramount-Warner Bros. merger (6 October 2026)
26. CBS News: Paramount closes $110 billion deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, creating Skydance (6 October 2026)

About this article

This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. It has been checked against the US Department of Justice's closing statement, the European Commission's decision announcement, the CMA's case page and the UK government's public statement, the parties' SEC filing and primary reporting on the state litigation, the settlement and the closing. The text of the consent decree and the CMA's full decision are summarised from published reporting and official pages. This article is general information, not legal advice; for advice on a specific matter, consult a qualified adviser. Last reviewed 6 October 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.