California AG Calls Out Ellison, Paramount; "We Intend to Win": Bonta
· BCPosted in: HBO, Max, Movies, Paramount+, TV | Tagged: paramount, Warner Bros
California AG Calls Out Ellison, Paramount; "We Intend to Win": Bonta
In a guest column on Monday, California AG Rob Bonta called out David Ellison and Paramount Skydance over the Warner Bros Discovery deal.
Published Mon, 10 Aug 2026 10:07:10 -0500
by Ray Flook
|
Comments
Article Summary
- California AG Rob Bonta says the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger is a clear antitrust threat.
- Bonta argues Paramount’s $110 billion bid would create illegal concentration in film distribution and cable TV.
- Using Minecraft and Mission: Impossible, Bonta warns a merged Paramount could cut competition, budgets, and releases.
- Bonta rejects claims of politics, says Paramount is spinning the case in public as the states prepare to win in court.
With the antitrust lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta (along with Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington) and the WGA to block David Ellison's Paramount Skydance and its $110 billion deal to acquire David Zaslav's Warner Bros Discovery now set for March 2027, we've been hearing a lot lately from Ellison and Paramount. But that changed on Monday, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta making the case in a guest column for Deadline Hollywood for why they're taking on Ellison's efforts to own Warner Bros. Discovery, accusing Paramount of "spearheading a public relations campaign to spin a narrative that is simply false" and laying out the reasoning behind the antitrust lawsuit.
"This lawsuit is about antitrust law. It is a straight up antitrust enforcement case. One that is very cut and dry. One that seeks to prevent the long-term structural impact from the loss of competition. An impact that can't be remedied with a few one-off, piecemeal promises," Bonta wrote. From there, the attorney general laid out the case for why the merger could be a hit on the entertainment industry across the board. "The proposed merger – the largest in Hollywood history – would combine two Hollywood titans and create an illegal level of concentration in three markets: film distribution for wide-release films, anticipated blockbuster film distribution, and cable TV," Bonta argued. "The resulting behemoth would control nearly one-third of theatrical motion picture distribution and nearly one-third of basic cable channels, including 50 of the most popular cable channels."
To make his point, Bonta offered a hypothetical on how a combined Paramount-Warner Bros would have handled two of each studio's biggest 2025 hits. "Take, for example, Warner Bros' 'Minecraft' and Paramount Skydance's latest 'Mission: Impossible, which were released in April and May last year. If the two companies had already merged, would they have released these megahits back-to-back, or would they have pushed one out? Would they both receive massive marketing budgets, or would one take a back seat? Would the production budgets for each have stayed the same, or would one have been cut down? We can't know the answers, but these are the kinds of concerning questions with industry-wide impacts that our lawsuit intends to prevent," he wrote.
Banto also pushed back against claims from the Paramount camp that the antitrust lawsuit is politically motivated, citing the Ellison family's close association with Donald Trump. "They would have you believe that this is purely politics. It's not. If it was, we would have been thrown out of court the day we filed. Instead, the judge reviewed our case, saw the merits of our arguments, and issued a temporary restraining order to block the merger. If this was about politics, Paramount and Warner Bros. would not have agreed to pause the merger until a judge makes a final decision or until next June, rather than go through preliminary injunction hearings that were likely to go the same way as the temporary restraining order – in our favor," the column continued.
Before wrapping up his piece, Banto doubled down on his claims that Ellison's Paramount is trying to "twist the narrative" away from what he says are the facts of the case. "Paramount and Warner Bros. see the writing on the wall: that they will lose in a court of law. So instead, they are resorting to the court of public opinion. They want to talk about anything but the facts of this case. To twist the narrative. To try to confuse, conflate, and convince you that this is about politics, the news, or the future of streaming, when they know perfectly well it is not. When our lawsuit makes it crystal clear that it is not. As disingenuous as it may be, they are welcome to do so," he wrote. "In the meantime, we will be telling the truth and fighting our case — fighting for American audiences, filmmakers, writers, creatives, production crews, and small businesses — in an actual court. And we intend to win."
Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!