Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Logo text Robert Van Nest, a superstar trial lawyer for leading tech companies across Silicon Valley facing bet-the-company litigation, is in talks to represent California and other states if they file a lawsuit to block Paramount‘s $110 billion megadeal for Warner Bros. Discovery, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.
Van Nest met with California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office on Friday to discuss a role on the case, said a person familiar with the situation. No final decision has been made. If he joins, he’ll square off against Paramount’s legal team led by antitrust heavyweight Jeffrey Kessler and Makan Delrahim, Trump’s former assistant attorney general for antitrust.
The talks occurred as a coalition of states led by California prepares a lawsuit to block the deal that’s expected to be filed within a month, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. Most of the states are led by Democratic attorneys general, though the group includes Republican prosecutors who’ve joined California in its bid to stop Nexstar’s $6.2 billion proposed acquisition of Tegna. New York, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Connecticut and Tennessee are among the several states in talks to join.
The states have identified theatrical distribution, streaming and news as relevant markets thus far, though claims advanced in the potential lawsuit remain fluid, according to the source.
“We’re looking at what’s happening with CBS right now,” the person said. The Warner Bros. acquisition is “going to impact that more with CNN.”
State attorneys general are one of several groups, which also include the Justice Department, the Federal Communications Commission, the European Union and consumers, that could pose an obstacle to consummating the merger. On Tuesday, U.K. regulators announced that they opened a probe into the deal. An initial deadline of Aug. 7 has been set for a decision on whether to initiate a “phase 2” investigation, a more in-depth review if it’s concluded that the merger may substantially lessen competition.
“We continue to engage constructively with regulators, including State Attorneys General, and are always prepared to address legitimate, clearly articulated antitrust concerns,” a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement. “However, we do not believe any aspect of this transaction raises such concerns. To the contrary, this is a pro-competitive transaction that will create a stronger competitor with the scale, flexibility, and resources needed to compete more effectively for audiences, premium content, and creative talent.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for Bonta said, “the Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation, and we do not have any updates to share at this time.”
Van Nest, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, is best known for representing tech giants in high-profile cases. He served as lead lawyer for Google in a lawsuit from Oracle seeking billions of dollars over software that powers much of the world’s smartphones. In what was called the “copyright case of the decade,” Van Nest helped convince the Supreme Court that Google’s copying of about 11,000 lines of software code constitutes fair use. He currently represents OpenAI in a series of lawsuits accusing the company of illegally training its technology on copyright works and regularly works with Netflix in patent litigation and other technology disputes.
But it was perhaps Van Nest’s representation of Qualcomm in a major antitrust trial that threatened the chip maker’s entire business model that drew the states’ attention. A federal appeals court in that case tossed a verdict against Qualcomm, reversing a federal judge who found that the company abused its monopoly by overcharging phone makers for its patents.
Also a potential consideration: an op-ed Van Nest penned for The New York Times last year urging law firms to challenge what he argued is unconstitutional retaliation against lawyers who represented President Trump’s adversaries.
Earlier this year, California added $14.3 million in funding for antitrust litigation amid the Justice Department’s retreat from 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 stated.
THR Newsletters
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Subscribe Sign Up
