Update
According to Deadline, new details of the concessions between Paramount and the state of California have been revealed by Rob Bonta. He says the settlement deal is “not a blessing” for the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger. Bonta stated, “This settlement is not a vote of support for this merger.” He continued, “It is not a blessing for the broader merger … which doesn’t serve the economy or consumers well.” Later, Bonta said bluntly, “I don’t think these companies should merge.” He explained, “I’d rather resolve the case in the boardroom rather than the courtroom, and that’s what happened here.”
He would also refer to the arrangement as “the opposite of Disney-Fox,” and a framework that “locks in a massive upside.”
- At least four of the films must be independent films and 20% must be blockbusters. (Bonta did not offer definitions of those terms.)
- Paramount must also establish indie film fund and pay $9.5M annually for workforce training
- It also will establish a news editorial independence board “to assure independent fact-based reporting” at CNN, according to Bonta.
The deal secures Paramount’s place in California with an influx of support for the entertainment industry, but it is not known how this will impact current jobs. Per Deadline, “The company has promised to deliver $6 billion in cost savings from the merger, which is likely to entail significant layoffs.”
The original article follows:
Antitrust Settled
According to Deadline, the final obstacle in Paramount‘s acquisition of Warner Bros. has been removed as the Antitrust Lawsuit, which was brought on by a dozen State Attorney Generals led by California’s Rob Bonta, has been settled. There haven’t been a lot of details disclosed, but the official announcement was made this morning. Paramount’s David Ellison claimed he would negotiate with the state on some concessions, so both parties have also announced that the settlement deal will include some.
Per Deadline, “Paramount has agreed to some CNN guardrails, financial penalties linked to CEO David Ellison‘s 30 movies a year commitment and some sort of separation of the studios for a period.”
The Lawsuit
The California-led lawsuit focused on antitrust concerns involving three areas of the entertainment business: wide-release films, blockbuster films, and cable network programming. Paramount has argued that the combined company would continue to provide significant competition in the theatrical market. Ellison has also promised that the merged studio would release 30 films per year, with significant theatrical windows. He has reportedly offered to put that commitment in writing.
The California Attorney General had accused Paramount of attempting to pressure the state into allowing what he considers an illegal merger. Paramount, meanwhile, has accused Bonta of playing politics. The two sides have increasingly taken their battle into the court of public opinion, with Bonta recently accusing Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery of focusing on public relations rather than the facts of the antitrust case.
Paramount’s threat to leave California
The looming lawsuit had Ellison previously threatening to take the studio out of California to a new location. David Ellison told a group of the company’s top executives that the company will begin the process of leaving California on October 1 if California Attorney General Rob Bonta refuses to negotiate a settlement to the state’s antitrust lawsuit challenging the planned $111 billion merger.
Ellison reportedly emphasized that he did not want to leave California, but said he no longer feels welcome in the state as Paramount and Bonta continue their increasingly public battle over the merger.
The comment section exists to allow readers to discuss the article constructively and respectfully, focused on the topic at hand.
What’s Not Allowed