California AG Leads Antitrust Suit Against Paramount's $111 Billion Purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery
Attorney General Rob Bonta and 11 other state attorneys general filed a lawsuit alleging the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger violates the Clayton Act by reducing competition in theatrical, cable and film-distribution markets.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that a coalition of 12 state attorneys general has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit to block Paramount Global's proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserts that the merger would substantially lessen competition in three defined markets: wide-release theatrical films, the distribution of top-grossing blockbusters, and the licensing of cable channels to distributors. Bonta said the deal could lead to higher prices, lower quality and reduced content for movie-goers, cable subscribers and theater owners.
"We determined that law was being broken with respect to three markets… it’s our duty to analyze the different markets and make a decision based on each about whether antitrust law is violated or not," Bonta told Matthew Belloni on the podcast "The Town."
Bonta emphasized that the lawsuit focuses on the theatrical and cable sectors, noting that streaming services such as Netflix, Apple and Amazon were excluded because the antitrust analysis treats those markets separately. He added that the merger would concentrate bargaining power among a small number of firms, potentially driving up costs for consumers.
Paramount responded that the lawsuit misapplies antitrust law and would hinder competition with streaming platforms. A company spokesperson said the transaction would create a stronger, well-capitalized media company better positioned to compete with dominant streaming services and that blocking the deal would harm entertainment workers and the broader Hollywood economy.
The Department of Justice recently closed its own antitrust review of the deal, concluding it is unlikely to harm competition. However, the DOJ noted that state attorneys general retain independent authority to pursue challenges under federal antitrust statutes.