Rob Bonta’s Anti-Merger Lawsuit Yields to Political Pressure and Paramount Influence

Rob Bonta filed suit in July to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, arguing that the Trump administration had abandoned its antitrust duties for political gain. “They are greenlighting deals that their own antitrust section at U.S. DOJ knows and believes are unlawful, and they’re overriding them in the White House with political decisions,” Bonta stated at the time. He added that officials were “not just missing in action, they are making things worse for Americans.” However, just two months later, Bonta was forced to drop the case, accepting only modest concessions largely because of external political interference.

California Governor Gavin Newsom publicly urged a settlement early in the process, warning that a trial would create prolonged uncertainty for the entertainment industry. Simultaneously, Paramount intensified its pressure campaign by mobilizing political and industry allies and threatening to move operations to Tennessee if a deal was not finalized by October 1. Facing a historic production slump, state leaders feared the negative optics of a major studio abandoning Hollywood. According to Abiel Garcia, a former California deputy attorney general, “Bonta, in the legal case, had the upper hand,” but “He got cut at the knees on every other issue.”

Bonta’s action was part of a broader trend among state attorneys general attempting to fill the void left by the Trump Department of Justice’s hands-off approach to antitrust enforcement. Alongside cases involving HPE/Juniper Networks, Ticketmaster, and Nexstar/Tegna, Bonta joined multistate coalitions to challenge corporate consolidation. However, Newsom’s intervention has raised concerns about whether state officials are equally susceptible to political influence. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser distinguished his approach, telling CFTN News that his governor has never offered feedback on antitrust matters. Paula Blizzard, who leads the California AG’s antitrust division, also emphasized the independence of elected attorneys general during a discussion at George Washington University, stating, “That’s probably all I can say.”

Bonta originally framed the lawsuit as a check on “billionaires currying favor with the president so he’ll do their bidding,” noting that Paramount CEO David Ellison had courted the president’s support for over a year. Yet, from Paramount’s perspective, Bonta was the one acting politically; he referenced Trump seven times during his press conference but mentioned Ellison only once, while invoking anti-Trump rhetoric. Observers also noted that the legal case was weak, a position reinforced when major labor groups including the Directors Guild of America, IATSE, and Cinema United sided with a settlement.

Ultimately, Paramount succeeded without securing a single favorable court ruling. When the case appeared to be stalling, the Trump-led DOJ and two Republican state attorneys general moved to intervene, challenging the very right of states to enforce antitrust laws. Bill Kovacic, a GWU professor, suggested Bonta had misjudged the political landscape. “It seems the attorney general overestimated the political support he was going to receive from the governor and other luminaries in his party,” Kovacic said. “That’s a reminder of the power companies have to shape opinions by throwing their economic weight around.”