Logo text
Robert Van Nest, a prominent attorney for Silicon Valley’s leading technology companies facing lawsuits over their corporate bet, is in talks to represent California and other states if they sue to block Paramount’s massive $110 billion deal for Warner Bros. Discovery. Hollywood Reporter I’ve learned.
A person familiar with the situation said Van Nest met with California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office on Friday to discuss his role in the case. No final decision has been made. If he joins, he will face Paramount’s legal team led by Jeffrey Kessler and Trump’s former assistant antitrust attorney general, Makan Delrahim.
The talks took place as a coalition of states led by California prepares a lawsuit to block the deal, which is expected to be filed within a month, according to a source familiar with the matter. Most states are led by Democratic attorneys general, though the group includes Republican attorneys general who have joined California in its attempt to stop Nexstar’s proposed $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna. New York, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Connecticut and Tennessee are among several states in talks to join.
The states have identified theatrical distribution, streaming and news as relevant markets so far, though the claims made in the potential lawsuit remain fluid, according to the source.
“We’re looking at what’s going on with CBS right now,” that person said. The acquisition will impact Warner Bros. More on that with CNN.
State attorneys general are one of several groups, which also includes the Justice Department, the FCC, the European Union and consumers, that could pose an obstacle to completing the merger. UK regulators announced on Tuesday that they had opened an investigation into the deal. A tentative deadline of August 7 has been set for a decision on whether to launch a “phase two” investigation, a more in-depth review if it is concluded that the merger might significantly reduce competition.
“We continue to work constructively with regulators, including state attorneys general, and are always ready to address legitimate and clearly articulated antitrust concerns,” a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement. “However, we do not believe that any aspect of this transaction raises such concerns. On the contrary, this is a pro-competitive transaction that will create a stronger competitor with the scale, agility and resources to more effectively compete for audiences, premium content and creative talent.”
In a statement, a Bonta spokesperson said: “Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Brothers remains under active investigation, and we do not have any updates to share at this time.”
Van Nest, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, is known for representing technology giants in high-profile cases. He served as lead counsel for Google in a lawsuit brought by Oracle seeking billions of dollars for the software that powers much of the world’s smartphones. In what he called “the copyright case of the decade,” Van Neste helped convince the Supreme Court that Google’s copying of about 11,000 lines of software code constituted fair use. He currently represents OpenAI in a series of lawsuits accusing the company of illegally training its technology in copyrighted works and regularly works with Netflix in patent lawsuits and other technology disputes. He recently represented the company in a Broadcom lawsuit accusing the company of infringing on patents covering the video streaming technology that powers its platform.
But perhaps it was Van Nest’s representation of Qualcomm in a major antitrust trial that threatened the chipmaker’s entire business model that caught the attention of the states. A federal appeals court in that case ruled against Qualcomm, reversing a federal judge who found that the company abused its monopoly by overcharging phone makers for its patents.
Also a possible consideration: an op-ed written by Van Nest New York Times Last year he urged law firms to challenge what he said was unconstitutional retaliation against lawyers representing President Trump’s opponents.
Earlier this year, California added $14.3 million in antitrust litigation funding amid a pushback from the Justice Department’s aggressive enforcement. “The lack of federal oversight in this area leaves California individuals and businesses vulnerable to predatory business practices that threaten affordability and consumer rights,” the budget summary said.
