Antitrust enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General and a coalition of states filed a court brief opposing the $14 billion merger settlement between Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks, citing anticompetitive concerns and a corrupted process at the U.S. Department of Justice.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor, customer, and strategic partnership agreements for clauses triggered by or related to a change of control, such as merger clauses, termination rights, and consent requirements. Specific attention should be paid to antitrust compliance representations, exclusivity provisions, and material adverse change (MAC) clauses that could be invoked due to the reduced competition in the wireless networking market. Teams should also assess any 'most favored nation' or 'right of first refusal' terms that might be affected by the merged entity's increased market power. Potential changes include renegotiating terms to mitigate anticompetitive risks, adding requirements for regulatory approval consents, and ensuring termination rights are enforceable if the merger leads to diminished service quality or increased pricing.
Entity
Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/attorney-general-rayfield-urges-court-to-reject-corrupted-14b-hewlett-packard-enterprises-juniper-networks-merger-settlement/
2026 03 13 Intervenors Opposition to Motion for Entry of Fin
https://www.doj.state.or.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-03-13-Intervenors-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Entry-of-Final-Judgment-redacted.pdf
Oregon Attorney General Enforcement Page
https://www.doj.state.or.us/consumer-protection/
"Hewlett Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks"
"under the federal Tunney Act"
"the merger would harm competition, raise prices, and reduce innovation in the market."
The provided press release is a media release from the Oregon Department of Justice announcing a multistate press conference of attorneys general from Oregon, California, Washington, Nevada, and New York advocating for increased state resources to address antitrust enforcement gaps following reduced federal oversight. No privacy-related enforcement actions, violations, penalties, or remedies are described in the document.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield led a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. Court of International Trade granted summary judgment to the states, ruling the tariffs illegal as they did not meet the statutory requirement of “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits.” The court invalidated the 10 percent tariffs on most global products, barring their enforcement.
Consumer protection and civil rights lawsuit filed by Oregon AG and 20 other states against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over unlawful funding conditions that coerce states into complying with policies unrelated to nutrition programs. The conditions relate to immigration, DEI, and gender identity, and are alleged to violate the Spending Clause and Administrative Procedure Act. The suit seeks to block these conditions to protect billions in funding for programs like SNAP, WIC, and school lunches that serve vulnerable populations.
Health enforcement action: Attorney General Rayfield led a coalition of 22 states and D.C. to secure a federal court order blocking the Trump Administration from threatening to cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to healthcare providers that offer gender-affirming care to youth with gender dysphoria. The court ruled the administration's actions unlawful, protecting access to care and upholding the right to make personal healthcare decisions.
Antitrust enforcement action where Oregon AG filed a lawsuit to block the $6.2 billion merger of Nexstar and Tegna, alleging it violates Clayton Act Section 7 by substantially lessening competition in broadcasting, which could harm local news and raise consumer prices.
Environmental enforcement action where Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, along with a coalition of states and cities, filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA's unlawful rescission of the 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge argues that the rescission ignores scientific evidence and legal precedent, threatening public health and environmental protections.