The Paramount Skydance takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery has finally landed in court, which raises the obvious question: where was this lawsuit months ago?

The Paramount Skydance takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery has already cleared a major federal hurdle, but 12 state attorneys general have now decided that combining Paramount, Warner Bros., HBO, CNN, CBS, Max, and Paramount+ under one corporate roof may not be great for competition. Imagine noticing the house is on fire after everyone has already picked paint colors.

On July 13, 2026, a coalition led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The complaint argues that the nearly $111 billion transaction, including debt, would reduce competition in theatrical film distribution, basic cable programming, streaming, and the broader entertainment market.

We have covered this story from the start, beginning with Netflix’s original agreement to acquire Warner Bros., HBO, and HBO Max, followed by Paramount’s hostile bid, the Ellison-backed bidding war, and Paramount eventually winning after Netflix stepped aside. Back in February, we noted that Paramount winning the bid was not the end of the story. Regulatory scrutiny, debt, politics, and the future of HBO, CNN, Warner Bros., Paramount+, and Max were always going to remain part of the plot. Nobody said Hollywood consolidation came with a clean third act.

What the Lawsuit Claims

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. The states are asking the court to prevent Paramount from acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery. If Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery try to close the deal before the case is resolved, the states have warned they may seek a temporary restraining order.

The complaint argues that the merger would combine two of the nation’s five major film distributors and two of the five major owners of basic cable channels. According to the filing, the combined company would leave four companies controlling more than 85 percent of wide-release theatrical films in the United States, while the merged Paramount Warner Bros. entity and Disney would control 59 percent of U.S. basic cable.

The states also claim the merger would give the combined company control of more than 50 basic cable channels, creating greater leverage in carriage negotiations with cable and satellite distributors. In plain practical terms: fewer companies owning more essential content usually means distributors have less negotiating room, and consumers eventually get invited to pay for the party.

The lawsuit also focuses heavily on theaters. The states argue that with fewer film distributors competing for screens, theaters could face worse revenue splits, stricter limits on discounts and complimentary tickets, fewer new releases, and less incentive for studios to invest in a broad theatrical slate.

Paramount’s Response

Paramount has rejected the lawsuit and says the states are misreading the modern entertainment market. The company argues that the merger would create a stronger competitor against dominant streaming and technology platforms, especially Netflix, and that delaying the deal would hurt entertainment workers who have already been squeezed by changes in the business.

That is the core tension. The states are framing this as a competition problem. Paramount is framing it as a survival strategy.

Both arguments are not crazy. That is what makes this more interesting than the usual “company buys company, executives discover synergies, workers discover LinkedIn” story.

Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are legacy entertainment companies trying to compete against Netflix, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, and Disney. But the way they propose to do that is by combining two historic studios, two major streaming platforms, CNN, CBS, HBO, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, TNT, MTV, HGTV, BET, Discovery Channel, Pluto TV, and more under one roof.

Netflix Is Still in the Room

Netflix may have stepped away from the Warner Bros. bidding war, but it remains central to the story. Paramount’s defense depends heavily on the idea that the combined company would be better equipped to challenge Netflix and the other tech-driven streaming giants. The states, meanwhile, argue that reducing the number of major film and cable owners is still harmful even if Netflix remains the biggest streaming target.

The timing is also interesting. Netflix reports Q2 2026 financial results on Thursday, July 16, 2026, at approximately 1:01 p.m. Pacific Time, with a live video interview scheduled afterward.

That earnings report lands after a rough stretch for Netflix’s stock. Recent market coverage has noted that NFLX has lost nearly 24 percent over the past three months ahead of its Q2 results. So while Paramount wants to paint Netflix as the untouchable giant, Wall Street has been reminding everyone that even the 800-pound gorilla occasionally slips on its own banana peel.

That does not weaken Paramount’s broader argument that Netflix is still the streaming benchmark. It does complicate the idea that every legacy media company must become enormous overnight to survive.

Is This About Antitrust or Politics?

The lawsuit is formally an antitrust case. The political pattern is still hard to ignore.

All 12 plaintiff attorneys general are Democrats: California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. No Republican attorney general joined the lawsuit.

The governor breakdown is slightly different. Eleven of the 12 plaintiff states currently have Democratic governors. Nevada is the exception, with Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo.

That does not automatically make the lawsuit partisan theater. State attorneys general often pursue antitrust cases for policy reasons, economic reasons, consumer protection reasons, and, yes, political reasons. Sometimes all of the above sit in the same conference room and pretend they came separately.

But the political backdrop matters. The Justice Department under President Donald Trump’s administration cleared the deal in June without requiring divestitures, while Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general continued to signal concern. Criticism over political influence has largely fallen along party lines, with Democratic officials questioning whether federal regulators gave the deal enough scrutiny.

Then there is CNN. Any deal that puts CNN under the same corporate structure as CBS and Paramount under David Ellison was always going to attract political attention. Pretending otherwise would require a level of innocence normally reserved for Hallmark movies and first-time streaming subscribers.

Paramount Has Cleared Some International Hurdles

Paramount also has a fair point when it argues that the deal is not being rejected everywhere. The company has received regulatory or competition clearances in several international markets, including Australia, China, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, and North Macedonia. It has also received foreign-direct-investment approvals in countries including Germany, Slovenia, Belgium, Czechia, New Zealand, Italy, France, and Romania.

That does not mean the transaction is home free. Reviews remain active in major markets, including the European Union and the U.K., where regulators have been looking at competition, media plurality, foreign investment, and the potential impact of combining HBO Max, Paramount+, CNN International, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and other services under one corporate roof.

So yes, Paramount can accurately say the deal has cleared some meaningful international hurdles. But the lawsuit from 12 U.S. states, along with continuing U.K. and European reviews, makes it clear that approval is still very much a moving target.

The California Exit Threat

One of the more aggressive subplots involves Paramount possibly leaving California.

Semafor reported on Monday that advisers close to David Ellison have urged him to consider moving Paramount’s corporate headquarters and reallocating some of the company’s planned spending outside California if Bonta sued to block the deal. The same report stressed that no decision has been made and that the idea may be brinkmanship.

Texas is the obvious political shorthand here because major companies including Chevron, Oracle, and Tesla have already moved headquarters out of California and toward Texas in recent years. But the more immediate production option mentioned in the reporting is New Jersey, where Paramount already signed a major lease at 1888 Studios in Bayonne.

That is where the story gets awkward. New Jersey is one of the 12 states suing to block the deal.

So if Paramount was hoping to use New Jersey as part of a “California is hostile, we are moving somewhere friendlier” argument, Trenton just walked into the room holding a legal complaint and gave studio developers, local contractors, and Monmouth County homeowners one more reason to check Zillow with mixed emotions.

What About Paramount’s Bayonne Studio Plans?

Paramount signed a minimum 10-year lease for more than 285,000 square feet at 1888 Studios in Bayonne in October 2025. The larger 1888 Studios project is planned as a 1.5 million to 1.6 million square foot production campus on the Bayonne waterfront, with 23 soundstages and major production support facilities.

There is no evidence right now that Paramount is walking away from that lease or that the lawsuit directly jeopardizes the Bayonne project. That needs to be stated clearly.

But future expansion is a fair question. If Paramount is rethinking where to place corporate offices, production spending, and future studio commitments, the lawsuit complicates New Jersey’s pitch. The state still has generous film and digital media tax incentives, and Bayonne remains a serious production play. But joining a lawsuit against Paramount’s biggest strategic deal is not exactly how one usually sends a fruit basket or box of Taylor Ham.

Netflix Fort Monmouth Keeps Moving

The New Jersey production story does not begin and end in Bayonne.

Netflix Studios Fort Monmouth is moving forward on the Jersey Shore. Officially, Netflix celebrated a construction milestone on June 23, 2026, with the installation of the final structural beam on Stages 3 and 4. The $1 billion project spans more than 292 acres across Oceanport and Eatontown and is planned to include 12 soundstages totaling nearly 500,000 square feet. Phase 1A remains on track for summer 2027, with Phase 1B targeted for fall 2028.

From a local perspective, the project looks very real. I live about two miles away and drive through the area a few times a week as a shortcut home. Three of the soundstages on the eastern side of the property appear to be in an advanced stage of construction.

The broader point is that New Jersey has become a serious production battleground. Netflix is building at Fort Monmouth. Paramount has leased space in Bayonne. Lionsgate has been part of the Newark studio conversation. New Jersey has been openly trying to become a major East Coast production hub. This lawsuit may not stop any of that, but it does make the politics a lot messier.

What This Means for Viewers

For consumers, the biggest questions are not about corporate headquarters or which governor gets to cut a ribbon. The real concern is what this deal could mean for the services, studios, news divisions, theaters, and catalogs people actually watch.

If Paramount+ and HBO Max eventually combine, prices could rise, bundles could change, and another major entertainment library could end up under one corporate roof. Theatrical output is another major concern. Fewer major studios can mean fewer wide releases, less negotiating leverage for theaters, and less incentive to take risks on films that are not obvious franchise plays.

There is also the question of what happens to Warner Bros. catalog titles, HBO, CNN, CBS News, Paramount Pictures, and physical media. Will those assets be treated as distinct creative and editorial brands, or simply as inventory to be optimized? The lawsuit does not answer those questions, but it does slow the process and force Paramount to defend the deal in court after already clearing a major federal hurdle.

The Bottom Line

The 12-state lawsuit is the most serious legal threat yet to Paramount’s Warner Bros. Discovery takeover. It does not guarantee the deal will collapse, but it could delay closing, increase pressure on Paramount, and force more public scrutiny of how much media power one company should hold.

Paramount’s best argument is that legacy Hollywood needs scale to compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple, YouTube, and Disney. The states’ best argument is that solving one competitive problem by creating a larger concentration problem does not magically become consumer-friendly because a streaming app is involved.

And then there is the politics. All 12 attorneys general suing are Democrats, the Trump Justice Department already cleared the deal, and CNN sits right in the middle of the transaction like a neon sign blinking “this will be normal.” Sure it will.

If Paramount really wants to move more production or corporate power out of California, New Jersey and Texas will both be part of the conversation. But New Jersey’s participation in the lawsuit makes that idea more complicated, especially with Paramount already attached to Bayonne and Netflix racing ahead at Fort Monmouth.

Hollywood consolidation was already messy. Now it has federal court filings, state politics, Netflix earnings week, and a possible headquarters fight.

Related Reading:

And it’s an add-on you don’t have to get if you only want the main black-and-white display.

The Esports World Cup 2026 has just begun in Paris and is expected to see thousands of players compete over the coming weeks. The tournament will continue until August 23 at the Paris Expo Porte de Versailles. The event has seen the participation of over 2,000 professional players and over 200 esports teams from over 100 nations. With a record $75 million prize pool on the line, the event promises weeks of intense competition across some of the world’s most popular games like PUBG Mobile. Here’s everything you need to know.

Players had to compete through the biggest qualification program in Esports World Cup history. More than 1.5 million players joined the qualification process. Organizers hosted around 330 qualifying tournaments, publisher leagues, and international circuits worldwide. Only the best-performing players and teams reached the final stage in Paris.

Club Championship Returns with Massive Rewards

The Club Championship remains one of the major highlights of the Esports World Cup 2026. Points can be scored by different teams playing many games over seven weeks. The championship will not be about winning a particular title but rather about the clubs’ performance. As much as $30 million in total will be awarded across different positions, with the winner receiving $7 million. Team Falcons will aim for another successful campaign after winning previous editions.

The Esports World Cup 2026 has retained Cristiano Ronaldo and Magnus Carlsen as Global Ambassadors. Both icons represent excellence in their respective fields. The involvement of these individuals enables the link between the worlds of esports, football, and chess.

Games Included in Esports World Cup 2026

The Esports World Cup 2026 comprises 25 tournaments across 24 esports titles. Some of the best-known games on PC, console, and mobile platforms will be represented in this list.

The 2026 Esports World Cup will be widely available on TV and online platforms. Viewers from more than 160 countries can follow the tournament on television and the Internet. Coverage will be available in more than 40 languages worldwide, and over 100 broadcasting partners will air the tournament. There will be over 7,000 hours of live coverage and 5,000 official co-streamers.

The three-match 2026 England v India ODI series, from July 14 to 19, sees Virat Kohli and Jasprit Bumrah return to the Indian team after prolonged absences.

Kohli will play his first game for the national side since January. Bumrah has not played a ODI since the 2023 ODI World Cup final. India have named an experienced squad with Rohit Sharma also back alongside captain Shubman Gill.

Apple said that it reached out to OpenAI in February to share its concerns, but didn’t receive a response.

Apple, in a new lawsuit, has accused OpenAI of stealing trade secrets, as Big Tech races to develop next-generation consumer gadgets powered by AI.

In its suit filed last Friday (10 July), Apple levelled accusations of a “coordinated pattern of misconduct at an institutional level” against OpenAI, including at Io – the hardware start-up that the AI giant acquired last year.

Bloomberg reported that tensions between the two companies worsened after OpenAI enlisted Apple design visionary and Io co-founder Jony Ive to help with its product line. The company already owned around 23pc of Io prior to the acquisition.

Apple, according to the filing, said that it reached out to OpenAI in February to share its concerns regarding confidential information belonging to it, but didn’t receive a response. OpenAI, meanwhile, said that it has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets”.

The lawsuit accused a number of former Apple employees who moved to OpenAI of a “pattern of theft” and alleged that OpenAI instructed potential job candidates from Apple to bring design artefacts and prototypes to their interviews. More than 400 former Apple workers are now employed at OpenAI.

Apple accused Chang Liu, its former senior system electrical engineer for iPhone, of leaving for OpenAI earlier this year without returning his devices or complying with exit procedures.

According to the filing, Liu allegedly told a former colleague that he still had access to an Apple-issued computer which he planned to access for sensitive information.

The lawsuit accused Liu of accessing his former colleague’s work computer without the company’s authorisation, and said that he exploited a previously unknown authentication bug without notifying Apple.

“He celebrated his improper access, exclaiming in a message left on his colleague’s Apple-issued work laptop, ‘LOL’, and that it was ‘so funny’”, the lawsuit read. It also accused Liu of accessing and downloading “dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files” while developing hardware products for OpenAI.

The lawsuit further accused Liu of coaching a former Apple colleague on how to copy confidential information from Apple. “Knowing that OpenAI interviews would involve discussing Apple technology, Mr Liu advised her on which confidential Apple material about unannounced Apple products she should study before her interview,” the lawsuit read.

Another defendant, Tang Yew Tan, who currently works as OpenAI’s chief hardware officer, has been accused of “methodically using Apple’s confidential information to benefit OpenAI”.

Tan left Apple to co-found Io – alongside Jony Ive, Scott Cannon and Evans Hankey in 2024 – where he led the line as its chief hardware officer.

In his 20-plus-year stint at Apple, Tan also worked as the company’s VP of product design for iPhone and Apple Watches. Ive, Cannon and Hankey weren’t named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that Tan, in the months before leaving for OpenAI, met with the company or its collaborators to discuss details of private meetings with an Apple supplier.

Tan allegedly used unauthorised access to seek information on an unannounced Apple product, the company said. He has also been accused of directing job candidates still working at Apple to bring confidential physical parts from products under development for ‘show and tell’ sessions at OpenAI.

“Other former Apple employees who had gone to work for OpenAI emailed themselves Apple’s confidential information to personal accounts on their way out the door,” Apple said.

“And others were improperly using their knowledge of Apple’s confidential and trade secret information to assist OpenAI in developing hardware.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

When humans mess with the sun in science fiction, it’s usually when a supervillain covers it up and imposes permanent darkness. A space tech company called Reflect Orbital wants to do the opposite: bring sunlight to the dark side of Earth with satellites equipped with giant mirrors. The FCC approved a single satellite as a test demonstration on Thursday, and some scientists are already unhappy about it. 

The approval green-lights Reflect Orbital to send its Eärendil-1 satellite into orbit. It’s a relatively small spacecraft, weighing 142 kilograms (313 pounds). 

Housed in its body is a thin-film square mirror measuring 18 meters by 18 meters (about 60 feet by 60 feet). The satellite is scheduled to launch into space on a SpaceX Falcon 9 later in 2026. 

Eärendil-1 promises to reflect sunlight onto Earth in a 3-mile circle that can be aimed basically anywhere that doesn’t have sunlight. The company has a web tool that shows you what this would look like, and it’s wide enough to light up entire neighborhoods, making it appear like daytime when it’s actually night. 

Ostensibly, this would be used to power solar panels at night, thus bypassing the one big drawback of solar panels: They can collect power only during the day. According to Reflect Orbital, electricity demand spikes right around sunset, which means power companies have to make the most power when the sun isn’t around to help. That increases fossil fuel usage, which is a contributing factor to climate change.

Reflect Orbital says that it wants to deploy 50,000 of these satellites in the event that the tech demonstration proves successful. That would put 16.2 million square meters of mirrors in Low Earth Orbit to light up large portions of the Earth on demand. For now, only the single Eärendil-1 satellite is approved for launch.

Scientists say this could be a disaster

Academics have been opposing the launch of Eärendil-1 since long before its FCC approval. Over 1,800 comments were made during the proposal stage, and most of them were negative. 

Researchers tend to agree that having 50,000 satellites beaming sunlight back to the Earth might be just as bad as a supervillain blocking out the sunlight entirely.

Multiple organizations filed complaints, including the American Astronomical Society and DarkSky, among others, citing potential problems with directing 16 million square miles’ worth of sunlight back onto Earth in the middle of the night.

“The concept of illuminating Earth from orbit represents a new category of artificial light at night with global ecological, cultural and regulatory consequences,” DarkSky said in an open letter to Reflect Orbital. “Based on the current scientific evidence, we do not see a viable pathway for this technology to align with responsible lighting principles or with our mission to protect natural darkness.”

Astronomers are also high on the list of people who oppose a big mirror brightening up the night, noting that even a single mirror flying in front of a telescope can easily overwhelm sensitive equipment in observatories on Earth. And since most astronomy research has to be done at specific times, thanks to the movement of the greater universe, missing an opportunity to observe something thanks to an army of mirrors may cause unrecoverable data loss. 

Scientists from other parts of the world are also unhappy with the notion that a single company in one country could ruin the sky for the rest of the world. 

“An individual RO satellite like Eärendil-1 is expected to have an optical brightness of at least 2 to 4 times that of the full moon,” the American Astronomical Society said in a complaint to the FCC. The AAS also notes that it’s not just the mirrors; because light scatters when it hits Earth’s atmosphere, the mirrors would also make the sky around them too bright to view, causing even more disruption in research. 

“For example, immediately adjacent to the sharp edge of the full moon, the sky is 10,000 times brighter than a dark sky with no moon,” the AAS said. “We expect a similar level of brightness surrounding Eärendil-1.”

Reflect Orbital admits that this is a regulatory blind spot, stating that there is “no established regulatory framework for space-based energy and lighting services.” The company says it’s open to regulation and working alongside scientists, while also stating that it intends to learn as much as it can from its test satellite before sending 50,000 more into space.

On Friday, Apple dropped the bombshell news it was suing OpenAI over the alleged theft of trade secrets, claiming that OpenAI stole Apple’s confidential data and engaged in efforts to learn proprietary information while recruiting former Apple employees.

In accusing OpenAI of stealing secrets about Apple’s unreleased products, Apple revealed that a former employee allegedly siphoned reams of sensitive files from the company’s shared network folders, weeks after leaving Apple for a job at OpenAI.

In its complaint, Apple says the former employee, a system electrical engineer named Chang Liu, allegedly “exploited a rare, previously unknown authentication bug” that allowed access to the company’s network. The bug is classified as a zero-day vulnerability, meaning that Apple had no time to fix it before it was allegedly exploited.

Apple has since fixed the bug and said it terminated the employee’s access once it learned of this “security breach.” In its complaint, Apple said the bug could have allowed a “few other” people to access data on its network, but alleged that only Liu exploited the bug to steal Apple’s confidential information while no longer an employee, citing a check of its server logs. 

The disclosure, while light in detail, highlights the challenges that organizations face with protecting sensitive corporate data after employees no longer work there. Companies often move to immediately cut off departing staff from further access to protect any sensitive information from leaving, including inadvertently. Companies that fail to fully decommission their employees’ accounts can face future security lapses, data breaches, or malicious actions by disgruntled staff.

Apple spokespeople did not respond to an email from TechCrunch with questions about the security vulnerability, how it was exploited, and when the company decommissioned the employee’s credentials.

“LOL… so funny.”

In the complaint, Apple alleged that Liu took “dozens of Apple’s confidential hardware-related files” over the course of several weeks while as a new OpenAI employee. 

Apple said the files contained “detailed information about unreleased products, engineering presentations, technical specifications, and proprietary project data.” 

The company claims Liu failed to return the Apple-issued work laptop he had previously used to access Apple’s network, suggesting it was once able to send and receive files from Apple’s internal systems. The complaint said that Liu allegedly claimed to have “another computer.” While he was at OpenAI, Liu also allegedly misused the access of an acquaintance, Yu-Ting Peng, a then-Apple employee who later went to work for OpenAI. Liu allegedly used Peng’s Apple-issued work laptop “while she was still employed at Apple and he was not.”

Apple said that during February 2026, Liu “tried to access Apple’s network storage — a cloud-based file repository containing Apple’s confidential engineering files, project documentation, and other proprietary information.”

Liu had allegedly discovered that he “still could access Apple’s network repository after leaving Apple, the result of a then-unknown authentication vulnerability.”

Apple did not describe the authentication “bug” that Liu allegedly used to access Apple’s network. However, authentication bugs generally refer to flaws in the login process that allow improper access to systems or data, either because of a weakness in how the login mechanism works or due to a misconfiguration, such as overbroad permissions or not decommissioning the login credentials of a former employee. 

Apple wrote in its complaint that when Liu learned he had unauthorized access to Apple’s systems, he did not report the bug to Apple under his employment agreement obligations, nor did he return his Apple-issued work laptop. 

The complaint added that Liu also failed to “delete the program that allowed the access” to Apple’s network. The company did not say what program or app that Liu allegedly used to access Apple’s systems. It’s not uncommon for employees to have tools, such as a work-approved VPN or remote-viewing app, that allow them to access sensitive data from outside of the company’s offices using their credentials.

Given that Liu was previously granted credentials to Apple’s network as an employee, TechCrunch asked Apple when the company decommissioned Liu’s access, but we did not hear back.

Once Liu allegedly gained access to the network share, he wrote to Peng: “LOL, I found out I can access the [network storage], so funny.”

Apple filed its suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, and has demanded a jury trial. OpenAI previously said it has “no interest in other companies’ trade secrets.”

The case, if it proceeds, could begin this year.

Meta’s acquisition of Manus drew widespread criticism in China for what was perceived as the handing over of critical technology to a geopolitical rival.

Chinese multinational technology company Tencent is in talks to become the largest external shareholder at AI start-up Manus in a deal that would further unwind Meta from a similar deal made previously, according to a report from Reuters, which cited two sources close to the matter. 

It was previously reported that US tech giant Meta would acquire Manus for roughly $2bn as the organisation aimed to further advance its work in the AI space. However, in April of this year, it was announced that Manus – which is based in Singapore, but originated in China – and Meta had begun dismantling the deal as a result of the Chinese government blocking it on the grounds of national security. 

When the deal was initially announced, it drew widespread criticism in China for what was perceived as the handing over of critical technology to a geopolitical rival.

An investigation commenced soon after, leading to the eventual dissolution of the agreement after the Chinese government blocked the deal.

Other investors reported to be involved in the new deal – which was first reported by the Financial Times – alongside Tencent are ZhenFund and HSG, both of whom were original investors in Manus. 

Investing in Manus is, for Tencent, an opportunity to further develop a reputation in the booming global artificial intelligence sector. In June, the organisation began testing a new AI assistant on its own app, WeChat, in an attempt to keep pace with its competitors in the space. 

WeChat users can interact with Xiaowei, Tencent’s AI agent, via text or voice prompts and the AI uses WeChat’s own large language model WeLM, while also tapping into DeepSeek to process additional queries.

Tencent has recently backed other innovators working in the AI space, such as DeepSeek, according to reports. In mid-June it was reported that Tencent was involved in a round in which the DeepSeek raised more than $7.4bn at a $50bn-plus post-money valuation. Tencent was also reported to have proposed taking a 20pc stake in DeepSeek. 

Updated, 2.43pm, 13 July 2026: This article was amended to clarify facts related to China’s investigation of the Meta-Manus acquisition, to clarify that ZhenFund and HSG were original investors in Manus before the Meta acquisition, and to clarify that Reuters and the Financial Times published the original reports.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.