SerpApi.Org
LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta insisted Monday that his antitrust challenge to Paramount Skydance's purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery is about competition, not politics, pushing back on conservatives who argue the lawsuit is motivated by opposition to Donald Trump.
“Today's order is a very clear indication that they are wrong, and that's not true,” Bonta told POLITICO after a federal judge granted a motion from California and 11 other states for a temporary restraining order pausing the deal for two weeks. “Politics doesn't fly in a courtroom. Politics doesn't fly with the judge. Ideological difference, political grievance, political posturing gets thrown out of court. … Today's court decision puts a lie to that allegation — clearly, succinctly — and it's by someone else besides me.”
He added: “They want to say it's anti-Trump, it’s anti-Ellison … Well, a judge just found something very different than all of that.”
Bonta’s remarks came hours after a victory for 12 Democratic state attorneys general in their challenge to a blockbuster transaction that Trump has signaled he would like to see completed. The plaintiffs, led by Bonta, are seeking to freeze the deal via a preliminary injunction, a move that could put Paramount, helmed by CEO David Ellison, on the hook for millions of dollars in ticking fees if the sale doesn't close by the end of September.
Paramount did not immediately respond to a request for comment. After Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s ruling was announced Monday morning, a spokesperson for the company said in a statement that it was grateful for the court’s “swift order” on the motion.
“This merger is lawful, pro-competitive, and will benefit consumers, creators, workers, and the entertainment industry,” the statement said. “We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and will look forward to the hearings on the substance of the State AGs’ action.”
The states’ complaint, filed last week, alleges that the merger violates a federal law prohibiting transactions that may substantially lessen competition. The lawsuit alleges that if Paramount were to merge with Warner Bros., the combined company would reduce competition in the markets for theatrical film distribution — including the release of anticipated blockbuster films — and the licensing of basic cable television channels.
In her ruling, Martínez-Olguín focused on the plaintiffs' claim that the deal would result in less competition in the wide-release theatrical market, saying they had presented "compelling evidence" that the combined company would "possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market."
“On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws,” she wrote.
The ruling did not address the complaint's allegations concerning blockbuster films — also known as tentpole films — or the licensing of basic cable television channels. Bonta told POLITICO he believes the judge focused on the wide-release theatrical distribution market simply because it was the first market identified by the plaintiffs, adding that he views it as the "least compelling" of the lawsuit's three theories.
“What might be ominous is that they lost on just one market analysis — not even on the other two that are more compelling, from my perspective,” he said. “The market concentration data shows a bigger market concentration and a bigger anti-competitive impact for those other two markets.”
Paramount’s statement said that it is “confident the evidence will demonstrate that the State AGs' antitrust arguments are without merit as their alleged markets and claims of anticompetitive effects are without any basis in modern market realities.” The company has said that its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, whose assets include a namesake film and TV studio, CNN and HBO Max, will allow it better to compete against rivals, among them streaming companies such as Netflix. If the deal is completed, Paramount would combine its Paramount+ streaming service with HBO Max to create a new one with about 200 million subscribers.
Bonta has been at the forefront of California’s litigation against the Trump administration on a range of issues. At his news conference announcing the Paramount lawsuit, he said the president "is pro-rigged economy.” Conservative commentators, meanwhile, have argued the litigation is politically motivated.
In an interview on “The Town” podcast on Monday, Makan Delrahim, Paramount’s chief legal officer, described Bonta’s case as a “weaponization of antitrust law.”
Asked about Delrahim’s comment, Bonta said that Martínez-Olguín “found that we're likely to win this case, and found in our favor. So, the court order today is really the … nail in the coffin to those arguments.”
The hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction is set for Aug. 3.
