Various legal actions have been taken to prevent Paramount from completing its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. But the state attorney generals involved have been joined by other parties looking to block this merger, some with entirely different grievances.
Earlier this week, 12 states—including California and New York—filed a suit alleging the completed merger would harm customers and the entertainment industry. Alongside that, the Writers Guild of America had its own suit against the merger, wherein it pledged to not “stand idly by as Paramount attempts to violate our country’s antitrust laws and deepen the contraction entertainment workers already feel.”
Echoing the concerns of many, the WGA called Paramount’s purchase of WB “a threat to the film and television industry. A merger of the two firms will increase concentration and decrease competition in [television and film writing] markets, resulting in numerous harms, including a reduction in the quantity and variety of theatrical films and series … and downward pressure on writers’ compensation for film and television writing services. In addition, the merger will increase the likelihood that the remaining firms will be able to tacitly coordinate with each other to further suppress competition in the markets where they operate.”
Additionally, there are the Paramount investors that filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, claiming CEO David Ellison and his father Larry made illegal deals with the Trump administration so the merger could go through. The investors cite Ellison’s promise to greatly change CNN if Warner Bros. is acquired, along with Paramount’s $16 million settlement to President Trump in 2025 and another $20 million in free, pro-conservative advertising. In the complaint, the investors say these events “not only harm the reputations of their owned news outlets, which are hemorrhaging viewers; they are latent liabilities waiting to be triggered by a future administration.”
Paramount+ subscribers are also involved. That came to light in April, with five parties coming out against the merger on the grounds that the subscription service could see price hikes and reduced viewing options. As of this week, that suit’s been folded into the federal antitrust case from the state AGs. As you might guess, Paramount’s still not thrilled about these suits, specifically calling the antitrust case “one of the weakest merger challenges in modern antitrust history.”
The studio’s lawyers pointed to current competitors like Disney and Universal as proof that “competition will remain vigorous,” arguing the acquisition will “increase, not decrease, theatrical motion picture output and will not adversely affect the price terms to theaters.”
On Friday, an 80-minute hearing took place in Oakland between Paramount and the state AGs, with the latter hoping for a 28-day temporary restraining order barring Paramount and WB from closing the deal. If Paramount’s unable to finish it by September 30, it’ll have to pay investors $7 million per day until it’s presumably completed.
At the hearing, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín heard both sides and said she’d issue a ruling on the emergency motion by Wednesday, July 22. Paramount previously promised not to close the deal until that date—and depending on Martínez-Olguín’s decision, it may be waiting even longer than that.
Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.
