Paramount’s legal team filed a comprehensive response to the antitrust lawsuit brought by a coalition of 12 states seeking to block the company’s merger with Warner Bros., asserting that the challenge will crumble when examined closely. The filing, submitted on Friday, outlines the defenses Paramount intends to present at a trial scheduled for next March.
A central argument in Paramount’s response is that the state coalition lacks the legal authority to regulate the merger, a responsibility Paramount contends rests solely with the U.S. Department of Justice, which previously approved the deal. The studio also highlighted that Cinema United, an industry trade group representing theater chains, has called for a settlement of the dispute.
“Day by day, the weak case against this Merger gets even weaker,” Paramount stated in its filing. The company further indicated it plans to contest the states’ definition of relevant markets, describing the plaintiffs’ arguments as built on “shortcuts and assumptions that collapse under scrutiny.”
California spearheaded the lawsuit in July, alleging that the merger would create unlawful monopolies in basic cable, wide-release theatrical, and blockbuster film markets. This action represents a departure from the typical pattern where states collaborate with the DOJ on antitrust matters; under the Trump administration, California and other states have frequently pursued independent legal strategies.
In its answer to the complaint, a procedural requirement to establish a legal controversy, Paramount denied the allegations and added detailed arguments challenging the states’ premise. The company argued that the lawsuit ignores the broader context of an industry undergoing rapid transformation due to streaming.
“The way audiences consume content is changing rapidly. Streaming services now have greater viewership than movie theaters and cable television,” Paramount wrote. “Plaintiffs’ case depends on ignoring this reality. It involves a series of gerrymandered markets based on cherry-picked data from the past. The alleged markets are not the product of sound economic analysis or current market realities. They have been invented for one purpose and one purpose only: to trigger a presumption… in the hopes the Court will look no further.”
The legal battle is complicated by a separate lawsuit filed by the Writers Guild of America, which contends the merger will diminish opportunities for writers. That case is set to be heard alongside the states’ challenge during the March trial. While Paramount has agreed to postpone closing the deal until a ruling is issued, it is requesting that the court require the plaintiffs to post a $1.88 billion bond to continue the litigation. A judge will consider that request on September 24.
Leave a Reply