Let the legal battle begin.

On Monday, a Las Vegas-based HBO Max subscriber sued Netflix over concerns that the streamer’s plans to buy some of Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets would create an anti-competitive environment in the entertainment industry and raise subscription prices.

Netflix said last week it agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery’s film and TV business, its Burbank lot, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service for $27.75 a share or $72 billion. It also agreed to take on more than $10 billion of Warner Bros.’ debt, creating a deal value of $82.7 billion.

Michelle Fendelander alleges in her lawsuit that if Netflix’s deal were to go through, it would decrease competition in the subscription streaming market. She is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent the merger from happening or issue a remedy for the anti-competitive effects.

“American consumers — including SVOD purchasers like Plaintiff, an HBO Max subscriber — will bear the brunt of this decreased competition, paying increased prices and receiving degraded and diminished services for their money,” according to Fendelander’s lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose.

Netflix on Tuesday called the lawsuit “meritless” and “merely an attempt by the plaintiffs bar to leverage all the attention on the deal.”

The Los Gatos, Calif.,-based streamer is long seen as the winner of the subscription streaming wars, boosted by having successfully entered the streaming content space earlier than rivals and for its superior recommendation technology. By buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets, Netflix would gain access to more franchises and characters, including Batman, “Game of Thrones” and Harry Potter. Netflix said it plans to keep Warner Bros.’ commitments to bringing its movies to theaters.

But Fendelander and some industry observers are concerned that Netflix owning one of its streaming rivals will hurt the entertainment industry because it means less competition.

“The elimination of this rivalry is likely to reduce overall content output, diminish the diversity and quality of available content, and narrow the spectrum of creative voices appearing on major streaming platforms,” according to the lawsuit by Fendelander, who has never been a Netflix subscriber.

Streamers over the years have steadily raised their prices, and some analysts said they would not be surprised if subscription prices continued to go up.

Netflix executives said they believe their deal to acquire WBD’s assets will benefit key stakeholders.

“It’s going to mean more options for consumers,” said Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters on a call with investors last Friday. “It’s going to be more opportunities for creators, more value for our shareholders. Together, we’ve got the chance to bring great stories, cutting edge innovation and more choice to audiences everywhere.”

Peters also pointed out at a UBS conference on Monday that Netflix combined with the assets it is acquiring from Warner Bros. Discovery would still amount to a smaller share of U.S. TV viewing than YouTube.

Whether the deal will get over the finish line remains to be seen, although Netflix executives say they believe it will. On Monday, Paramount said it would directly appeal to shareholders to offer an alternative bid.

A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s ban on federal permits for wind energy projects in what supporters said was an important victory for the embattled industry.

President Trump issued the ban on his first day back in office through an executive order that called for the temporary withdrawal of nearly all federal land and waters from new or renewed wind-energy leasing. The president said such leases “may lead to grave harm” including negative effects on national security, transportation and commercial interests, among other justifications.

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, for the District of Massachusetts, ruled that the ban is “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law,” and said the concern about “grave harm” was insufficient to justify the immense scope of a moratorium on all wind energy.

The challenge was brought by attorneys general in 17 states, including California, and Washington.

In it, they argued that halting federal wind permits created an “existential threat” to the wind industry that could erase billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs.

“A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

At least seven major offshore wind projects were paused as a result of the federal permitting ban, according to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council, plus several more that were in early phases of development.

“This ban on wind projects was illegal, as this court has now declared. The administration should use this as a wake-up call, stop its illegal actions and get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy,” said Kit Kennedy, the council’s managing director for power, in a statement.

The lawsuit noted the president’s executive order was issued the same day as his National Energy Emergency Declaration, which encouraged domestic energy development not tied to wind and other renewables. The president has heavily supported fossil fuel production including oil, gas and coal.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said offshore wind projects were given “unfair, preferential treatment” under the Biden administration while the rest of the energy industry was “hindered by burdensome regulations.”

“President Trump’s day one executive order instructed agencies to review leases and permitting practices for wind projects with consideration for our country’s growing demands for reliable energy, effects on energy costs for American families, the importance of marine life and fishing industry, and the impacts on ocean currents and wind patterns,” Rogers said. “President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security.”

California has vowed to stay the course on offshore wind despite the federal challenges.

The state has an ambitious goal of 25 gigawatts of floating offshore wind energy by 2045, by which point California officials say offshore wind could represent 10% to 15% of the Golden State’s energy portfolio. Five ocean leases have already been granted to energy companies off Humboldt County and Morro Bay.

In August, the Trump administration said it was cutting $679 million for “doomed” offshore wind projects, including $427 million that had been earmarked for California.

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel of U.S. clean energy at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said obstructing the build-out of clean power is the wrong move as the country’s need for electricity is surging from data centers, industry and other demands.

Wind, solar and battery storage offer the most affordable ways to get more reliable power on the grid, Kelly said.

“We should not be kneecapping America’s largest source of renewable power,” he said, “especially when we need more cheap, homegrown electricity.”