Salem, Oregon – A coalition of state attorneys general is asking a federal court to block a proposed settlement tied to the $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks, arguing the agreement fails to protect competition and was shaped by a deeply flawed process.
At the center of the challenge is Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who warned that combining two of the nation’s largest wireless networking providers could reshape the market in ways that harm businesses and consumers alike.
Rayfield said the stakes reach far beyond the technology industry.
“When two of the biggest players in wireless networking merge, prices go up and innovation slows down,” said Attorney General Rayfield. “Wireless touches everything, from your home internet to the small business down the street.”
According to court filings submitted by the coalition, the merger would unite the second- and third-largest suppliers of wireless networking equipment in the United States.
Regulators had previously identified the companies as direct competitors, often facing each other head-to-head in bids for major contracts. Their combination, the brief notes, would leave the market heavily concentrated, with Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Cisco controlling a vast share of the sector.
State officials say the Justice Department’s antitrust division initially recognized those risks and built a strong case opposing the merger. Negotiators reportedly sought remedies that could have addressed the competitive concerns.
But when Hewlett Packard Enterprises rejected those terms, the company instead turned to influential lobbyists, who the states allege helped broker a settlement that left the core antitrust issues unresolved.
The filing also describes a turbulent period within the Justice Department during negotiations. Officials claim the leadership of the antitrust division, including Gail Slater and her senior deputies, were sidelined during key discussions and later forced out of their positions. The coalition further contends that critical details about lobbying efforts and alternative remedies were not fully disclosed in required filings.
Because of those concerns, the states are urging the court to reject the settlement under the federal Tunney Act, a law enacted after Watergate to ensure antitrust agreements serve the public interest rather than the influence of powerful corporations. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for March 23 at 10 a.m. in the San Jose Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin joined Rayfield in submitting the court brief.
