A California-led coalition of 12 states has filed a federal antitrust suit in the Northern District of California seeking to block Paramount’s proposed $110 billion deal involving Warner Bros.

The former chief financial officer of The Epoch Times Association, Inc., Weidong Guan, has pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to participating in a conspiracy involving at least $67 million in illicit funds. The case is notable not only for the size of the alleged laundering operation, but also because it involves a senior finance executive at a media organization and is being prosecuted in one of the country’s most prominent white-collar enforcement venues.

For legal professionals, the plea is a reminder of how aggressively federal prosecutors continue to pursue anti-money-laundering cases tied to corporate insiders.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has completed its review of Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. and concluded the transaction is not likely to substantially lessen competition. In most deal cycles, that would mark the end of the government review story. Here, it may be the beginning of the litigation story.

According to reports, attorneys general in California, New York, and potentially other states are preparing to challenge the merger anyway.

The Justice Department cleared Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. on June 12, 2026, finding the transaction was unlikely to substantially lessen competition in traditional television markets. But the federal green light may be only the beginning. California, New York, and other states are reportedly preparing their own challenge, creating the prospect of a high-stakes showdown over how aggressively state enforcers can police deals the federal government declines to stop.

That split is what makes this story especially significant.

A federal judge in California has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the proposed $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and TEGNA, handing enforcers and private challengers a significant early win in one of the most closely watched media antitrust fights in recent years.

The court found that the plaintiffs — including multiple state attorneys general and DirecTV — were likely to succeed on claims that the transaction would lessen competition, giving the combined company greater leverage over distributors and potentially leading to higher prices or worse terms that could ultimately affect consumers.