Paramount’s furious statement against California, Netflix in escalating WBD war

Paramount has vowed to fight California’s lawsuit seeking to block its proposed $110-billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing the deal would actually boost competition.

“The lawsuit filed by the state attorneys general, in the most generous light, reflects a fundamentally flawed application of the antitrust laws and is wrong on both the facts and the law.”

“We will vigorously defend the transaction and demonstrate that this challenge is inconsistent with sound competition policy and the competitive realities of the media marketplace,” a spokesman said.

The company argued delaying the merger would hurt entertainment workers who have already endured years of disruption as streaming and technology companies have reshaped the industry, costing California thousands of jobs.

Paramount maintained the combined company would be better equipped to compete against dominant streaming platforms such as Netflix by investing more heavily in premium programming, theatrical releases and creative talent. (Netflix was initially gunning to acquire WBD.)

The David Ellison-headed conglomerate also accused the attorneys general of protecting the industry’s largest streaming rivals rather than consumers, saying the lawsuit would ultimately benefit major technology companies while preventing a stronger competitor from emerging.

“We will continue to fight against any attempt to derail a deal that strengthens competition, expands opportunity, and positions the combined company to compete in an increasingly competitive global media landscape,” the spokesperson said.

Regulators in 24 jurisdictions have already cleared or allowed the transaction to proceed after reviewing its competitive impacts, according to Paramount.

Paramount’s response came just minutes after California and 11 other states sued to block the company’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, greenlit by the President Donald Trump’s administration.

Warner Bros. Discovery referred The California Post to Paramount and declined to comment separately.

The multinational mass media and entertainment juggernaut is reportedly considering moving its headquarters out of California, with advisers to CEO Ellison urging him to relocate the company — a move that could shift billions of dollars in planned investment and production spending out of the Golden State.

Bonta brushed aside the reports during Monday’s press conference, suggesting the timing was no coincidence.

“We heard that claim yesterday for the first time, and honestly, it seemed like a last-ditch effort to try to blackmail my office and the attorneys general into allowing an illegal deal, an illegal merger to go through,” Bonta said.

The California attorney general made the remarks while speaking outside the Hollywood Sign after announcing the sweeping antitrust lawsuit, using the iconic entertainment landmark as the backdrop for his attack on the proposed merger.

“I have a duty, I have an obligation to enforce the law. Antitrust law, the rule of law, is good for business,” Bonta said. “We support businesses. We are pro business, pro businesses that follow the law. If your business plan involves breaking the law, it’s not a very good business plan.”

Bonta also criticized the Trump administration, which declined to challenge the merger after the Justice Department completed its review.

“The Trump administration has absolutely dropped the ball, worse than dropping the ball,” he said. “It would be better if they just did nothing. They’re definitely doing nothing, but they’re also affirmatively making things worse. They are greenlighting.”

Although the lawsuit was brought by a dozen Democratic attorneys general, Bonta invited Republican state attorneys general who have expressed concerns about the merger to join the legal challenge.

“I think there have been Republican attorneys general that have been critical of this proposed deal. It’s unfortunate that they have not joined us in this case. It’s not too late. If Republican AGs want to join the 12 attorneys general who brought this case, please reach out to us,” he said.

Paramount, however, doubled down on its position that the merger is pro-competitive, arguing in a lengthy statement that the lawsuit “distorts settled antitrust law” and ignores the current realities of the entertainment business. The company said the combined studio would be a stronger competitor to dominant streaming and technology companies that have transformed the industry, while boosting investment in movies, television and creative talent.

The media giant also argued that delaying or blocking the deal would only hurt Hollywood workers, saying the industry has already suffered through years of disruption that has cost California tens of thousands of entertainment jobs. It said the merger would create a “stronger, well-capitalized, creative-first media company” capable of investing more aggressively in premium content and theatrical releases.

Paramount further contended that the lawsuit would end up protecting dominant streaming platforms such as Netflix rather than consumers, arguing that stopping the merger would “shield those dominant streaming platforms like Netflix and technology companies from much needed competition” while preserving what it called a failing status quo.

The company also pointed to approvals from regulators in 24 jurisdictions worldwide, including the US, Australia, Canada, Germany, France and South Korea, as evidence the deal passed extensive competition reviews. In response, Bonta argued that European and other international markets operate differently from the US market and that those approvals do not address the specific competition concerns raised in the lawsuit.

Paramount said those decisions underscore that the merger does not threaten competition and stand in stark contrast to the lawsuit filed by the coalition of AGs.

In its statement, Paramount also highlighted commitments Ellison has made throughout the review process, including releasing at least 30 theatrical films annually with a minimum 45-day exclusive theatrical window. The company said it also plans to continue licensing content to third parties and increase production rather than scale it back, arguing the strategy would create more opportunities for actors, crew members, writers and organized labor.

“I’m sure Paramount and Warner Bros. are going to say a lot of things based on this lawsuit. We have spoken very clearly, very precisely in 39 pages of a complaint, laying it out chapter and verse,” Bonta said.

Bonta also disclosed that his office has enlisted Los Angeles-based law firm Milbank LLP to help litigate the case, citing the size and complexity of the challenge.

“They will follow our direction, our guidance, our lead. But this is a place where we need the firepower, the resources, the ability to advance this case on behalf of consumers, a free marketplace, the rule of law,” he said.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters