California PUC Scheduled to Vote on Charter/Cox Transaction: Additional Bites at the "Conditions" Apple Shouldn't Be Allowed to Upset the Pro-Consumer Cart

Next Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at long last is poised to vote on the transfer of control of Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter). And with little time to spare. The question is, will extra-legal attempts to saddle this pro-consumer transaction with unjustified conditions "jeopardize the Transfer's public benefits altogether"?

In comments filed with both the CPUC and the FCC, a June 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, and a series of blog posts, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I consistently have argued that the proposed combination of Charter and Cox is likely to generate clear consumer-benefitting efficiencies and, as a result of the de minimis overlap of their service territories as well as the impact of intense competition from Big Tech, no significant offsetting harms.

As we concluded in our submission to the FCC:

[T]he combination of Charter and Cox promises numerous consumer benefits. These include [(1)] lower costs, greater choice, and additional innovation in traditional cable offerings (broadband and video) fostered by an enhanced ability to compete with often much larger rivals, including Big Tech platforms with global reach; (2) the expansion of Charter's hybrid [mobile virtual network operator] offering into Cox's footprint combined with lower costs through greater scale; and (3) the "onshoring" of Cox customer-service jobs. And given the lack of any meaningful overlap in service territories, not to mention the high level of third-party competition in all three marketplace sectors, there appears to be little, if any, basis for concern that the transaction could result in significant harms.

*    *    * 

Regarding the state of play in California, the last hurdle that the transaction must clear, let's start with (potentially) good news: as I noted in my June 23 post to the FSF Blog, the parties expressed concern in a June 18 notice of ex parte communication that the CPUC's failure to act by August 13 – that is, the very day upon which the vote is scheduled – could result in the expiration of the Department of Justice's Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) approval. That "would cost the companies $2.5 million in filing fees and require them to wait at least another 30 days for DOJ clearance."

Should a vote to approve proceed as scheduled, those imminent instances of inefficiency and waste would be averted.

And now, let's turn to the (potentially) bad news: as I described in that same blog post, commenters, certainly aware of that looming deadline, had urged the CPUC to impose still more conditions – that is, on top of those agreed to by the parties in comprehensive settlements (Settlements) with the CPUC's Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) and described in a May 18 notice of ex parte communication.

(Without getting too far into the weeds, there are two proposals before the CPUC: (1) the Proposed Decision of Administrative Law Judge Ormond (PD), to which Charter and Cox roundly object, and (2) the Alternative Proposed Decision of Commissioner Matthew Baker (APD), which is based upon the Settlements.)

In reply comments, CETF took issue with the PD, contending that "[b]ottom-line, a settlement agreement requires the assent of its parties" (emphasis in original).

Similarly, in their reply comments regarding the PD, Charter and Cox asserted it "deviates from longstanding Commission precedent, resulting in 'clear legal error and technical inconsistency,' by improperly superseding Settlement terms, and imposing extraneous measures with no record support. It would materially impede Charter's ability to compete and jeopardize the Transfer's public benefits altogether" (citations omitted).

By contrast, Charter and Cox noted approvingly in their reply comments on the APD that it "correctly finds that the Transfer, with the Settlements, serves the public interest, and, 'paired with the mitigations' that Joint Applicants accept (subject to modest revisions), also 'address[es] concerns raised by parties outside the [Settlement A]greement[s]'" (emphasis in original).

*    *    *

The Settlements to which Charter and Cox – as well as the CPUC's Public Advocates Office – are a party appear to be more than sufficient to address any potential harms resulting from this transaction. The CPUC therefore should reject calls to unilaterally supersede those agreements and instead approve the APD at its meeting next week.

Is California Leveraging the Clock to Extract More Concessions From Charter and Cox?

In a March post to the FSF Blog regarding the merger between Charter Communications, Inc., and Charter Holdings, LLC (collectively, Charter) and Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox), I identified the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as "the final, time-sensitive hurdle preventing the formation of a combined company better able to compete in broadband, mobile, and video." In recent days that time-sensitive hurdle has grown substantially.

In a video conference that took place on June 15 described in a June 18 notice of ex parte communication, representatives from Charter reiterated its concerns that the CPUC's timeline for action "would not sufficiently account for unforeseen or unanticipated delays that may occur, and that failure to complete the Transaction review prior to the [Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR)] expiration would jeopardize the Transaction and the consumer benefits it would produce."

Meanwhile, Broadband Breakfast (subscription required) reports that "[s]ome advocacy groups in California want the state to tack on more conditions if it approves Charter's $34.5 billion acquisition of Cox Communications." Any such conditions would be in addition to commitments – including, among other things, a "$275 million investment over three years to upgrade Charter's network to support symmetrical gigabit service across its legacy service areas" – already agreed to in comprehensive settlements with the Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund described in a May 18 notice of ex parte communication.

Coincidence? Who can say.

What we do know is that the parties to this transaction – which has obtained the approval of the FCC, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and every other state within which they operate – repeatedly have warned the CPUC that its failure to sign off on the deal by September 15 at a minimum "would cost the companies $2.5 million in filing fees and require them to wait at least another 30 days for DOJ clearance."

Accordingly, the parties have on numerous occasions urged the CPUC to act "promptly." Most recently, and as described in the June 18 notice of ex parte communication referenced above, Charter explained why CPUC action by August 13, rather than its next meeting scheduled for September 3 (that is, a mere 12 days before HSR clearance expires), is "necessary."

As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I explained in comments submitted to the FCC, and as every other reviewing body has concluded, the combination of these two companies will benefit competition – and, in turn, consumers.

The time for regulatory arbitrage has run out.

The CPUC should act before the DOJ's HSR clearance runs out, too.