A coalition operating under the Block the Merger banner has submitted an amicus brief to a California federal court, urging judges to reject a recently reached settlement between Paramount and several state attorneys general regarding the proposed Skydance-Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery merger.
The filing was made late Thursday by five organizations: Free Press, the Committee for the First Amendment, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Future Film Coalition, and the International Documentary Association. This legal action followed an emergency motion requesting permission to intervene, which was granted earlier that day by Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín. The court set a deadline of 12:01 a.m. PT on September 25 for interested parties to submit briefs, coming shortly after 12 state attorneys general finalized a settlement to avoid litigation over the deal.
In a joint statement, the coalition criticized the consent decree announced on Monday morning, arguing that it fails to address long-term harms to competition, creativity, and independent journalism. The groups noted that outside of those with direct financial stakes in the merger, few have suggested the agreement adequately mitigates these risks, describing the broader reaction as one of silence, skepticism, or weak support at best.
“The arguments laid out in this brief reflect the concerns that just days ago, California Attorney General Bonta also willingly voiced,” the statement read. “While we may never know what caused the radical turnabout to deliver such a toothless settlement, we do know that this consent decree bucks governmental safeguards designed to protect the public from harm. The court should reject it outright.”
Additionally, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has independently filed a separate amicus brief opposing the settlement.
Historically, these consent decrees fail to deliver. Skeptical this will actually protect independent journalism long-term.
More media consolidation isn’t the solution. I hope the court listens to these advocacy groups and rejects the deal.
Does anyone else find it suspicious that the AG changed their tune? Transparency in these settlements matters for public trust.
I was surprised California dropped the fight so quickly. The coalition is right to push back against such a toothless decree.
This settlement looks incredibly weak. How can judges approve this when it ignores real competition concerns?