States Sue to Block Paramount-Warner Bros Merger, Defying DOJ
4 66A coalition of 12 states led by California is suing to block the $111 billion Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. merger, arguing it would reduce competition in theatrical distribution, blockbuster films, and basic cable licensing. The challenge (PDF) defies the DOJ's approval of the deal. Variety reports: The coalition, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleges that the $111 billion transaction violates the Clayton Act by lessening competition in three distinct markets: wide-release theatrical distribution, "top-grossing" theatrical distribution, and basic cable licensing. "The unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S.," Bonta said in a statement on Monday.
The suit argues that the combined company will control 27% of the wide-release theatrical distribution market, 30% of the submarket comprising "anticipated blockbuster films," and 27% of the basic cable bundle. The states argue that such consolidation will harm theaters and cable and satellite providers that rely on competition among distributors. Paramount and Warner Bros. are two of the five remaining legacy studios. Together, all five -- including Disney, Sony and Universal -- control 86% of theatrical distribution and 90% of blockbuster distribution, the states said. Warner Bros. and Paramount are also the second- and third-largest basic cable distributors, respectively.
[...] The states are expected to seek an injunction to block the transaction, which Paramount expects to close sometime after July 22. The 12 states in the coalition are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. [...] All are represented by Democratic attorneys general. "Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices -- it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences," Bonta said. "In this country, no one is above the law. With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy."
4 comments
Re:Let it burn (Score: 5, Interesting)
by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Monday July 13, 2026 @04:53PM (#66236920)
1. Blockbuster films help fund other films and a lot of people like them enough to have them make money or crash and burn a ton of cash... They shouldn't succeed simply because they have a 30% marketing budget which is ridiculous because of the film's pile of money.
Yes, it makes bland stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator and they don't have to run their business on massive bets; perhaps if people were not such gullible consumers?? FX doesn't draw people in as much...
Also, those expensive films pay a lot of people to make them although a ton of money is not going to the FX people. The bankable movie stars get too much for their brand. That is on the public... The big unspoken cost is the business managers who take massive profits while probably encouraging the hate on the stars they resent having to pay high wages to. They are also trying to replace every writer, artist, and actor with AI so they can keep all the money for themselves. Think it's bad now? Wait until they have zero push back from their interference which is the biggest reason films suck today. The formula committee and exec producer created shit that ruined everything is going to have a suck up AI following orders... not sneaking around the system to add memorable scenes to Forest Gump disobeying the bean counter's "artistic" vision.
2. Cable TV is not great and they make you buy channels you don't watch (or hate or are actively destroying the USA.) but the cable model with ads funded tons of TV shows that were good and had niche markets. Now the whole business model is shot, TV shows of the past are not possible; just some on broadcast TV or the HBO model (also might die.) Youtube shows make no money and have to beg for donations just to fund a tiny staff without stability or capacity to produce much. So now you have tons of choice and is it really cheaper?? I know people who pay as much or more now than before and they don't rave about quality improvement - plus they admit to watching a lot of old content from before "modernization."
The real problem: People are overly entertained. We are amusing ourselves to death. You shouldn't see so many videos that everything is a rehash. That said, if you pick the best of every plot or genre, we don't need any more new content if you consumed it in moderation. One thing I've noticed in decades in education is that we have far fewer people with actual hobbies. Pure consumption is not a hobby. Get a hobby and you won't have time to see all this content slop... and it was slop before AI started learning the patterns that was turning it into slop already.
Re:What about Netflix? (Score: 5, Insightful)
by The-Forge ( 84105 ) on Monday July 13, 2026 @05:09PM (#66236950)
At this point they see Netflix as the way lesser of 2 evils.
Re:Translation (Score: 5, Insightful)
by machineghost ( 622031 ) on Monday July 13, 2026 @06:26PM (#66237042)
Do you have any non-propaganda, unbiased evidence whatsoever that consolidating into fewer companies will in any way result in greater production of creative works?
Because if not, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the statement you quoted isn't actually propaganda (it's just a statement of fact).
Re:Let's see (Score: 5, Insightful)
by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Monday July 13, 2026 @10:39PM (#66237304)
Its all about making sure that CNN ends up in the hands of a Trump ally who will turn it into a Fox News clone and destroy a major thorn in the side of Trump and the republicans. Anything else that might happen is secondary to that.