Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Colorado attorney general opposes $14 billion HPE-Juniper merger settlement

ColoradoBiz Staff //March 30, 2026//

Deposit Photos

Deposit Photos

Colorado attorney general opposes $14 billion HPE-Juniper merger settlement

ColoradoBiz Staff //March 30, 2026//

Listen to this article

DENVER — Attorney General and a coalition of state attorneys general filed a court brief opposing a $14 billion between and .

In Brief:
  • Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser leads opposition
  • Merger valued at $14 billion between HPE and Juniper Networks
  • Concerns over reduced competition and higher prices
  • Hearing scheduled March 23 in northern district of California

The states argue the merger between the second- and third-largest providers of equipment in the United States would reduce competition, raise prices and limit innovation. They also contend the settlement reached by the U.S. Department of Justice is not in the public interest due to concerns about the process behind it.

Last year, a court allowed the states to intervene in the case following reports that lobbying efforts influenced the settlement negotiations.

“Particularly in the wake of a recent Justice Department decision to accept a dubious settlement of the monopolization case against Live Nation, we must challenge the worrisome influence of lobbyists on its decision-making,” Weiser said. “A Justice Department that acts not to protect consumers, but to protect favored companies, undermines the rule of law and rewards bad actors.”

In the brief, the attorneys general said the Justice Department’s Division initially argued that the merger was anticompetitive, noting that the companies compete directly and that the combined firm would operate in a highly concentrated market dominated by two companies.

The states allege that after Hewlett Packard Enterprise rejected proposed remedies, the company relied on lobbying efforts rather than defending the merger in court. They also claim key antitrust officials were excluded from later negotiations and that required disclosures did not fully detail alternative remedies or lobbying activity.

The coalition is asking the court to reject the settlement under the , which requires antitrust agreements to serve the public interest.

A hearing is scheduled for March 23 in the of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Attorneys general from California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin joined the filing.

-