Paramount requests $1.88B bond from state AGs trying to stop Paramount merger

California Attorney General Bonta led the charge of state attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the Writers Guild of America in a lawsuit against the Paramount merger, citing antitrust concerns.

Ashley Baker told The Center Square that “the merger was already cleared by the Department of Justice. Bonta’s political allies like Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass, and Xavier Becerra oppose what he’s doing, and that number continues to grow by the day.”

“Just last week, Democrat elected officials from New Jersey joined the opposition to Bonta’s lawsuit and expressed concerns that their constituents could be responsible for covering the $7 million per day tab,” Baker said.

“Each of the attorneys general who signed onto Bonta’s lawsuit should be forced to answer why they would expose their constituents to that kind of financial risk,” Baker said. 

When reached for comment, Bonta’s media office told The Center Square: “Our office believes Paramount’s motion has no merit, and we look forward to presenting our case in court at the September 24th hearing.”

 The office said that “the proposed Warner Bros./Paramount merger would combine two Hollywood titans and extinguish competition between them.”

Bonta’s office stated it believes “this merger is illegal under long-standing federal antitrust law, would create a troubling level of concentration in three markets, and will mean less competition, higher costs for consumers, lower wages, job cuts, and fewer movies and TV shows.”

Paramount filed reply briefs on Tuesday “in support of its request that the district court enforce the requirement that the State Attorneys General and the Writers Guild of America post a bond in connection with their lawsuit to block Paramount's merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.,” a press release said.

The release said that the lawsuits are the “only remaining barrier to closing this transaction.” 

Paramount has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment. 

In a statement, a Paramount spokesman said: "If plaintiffs insist that this transaction is paused during the pendency of their lawsuit, they must accept the financial consequences if their challenge ultimately fails.”

“"But for these lawsuits, the transaction is now otherwise ready to close, and the resulting costs of delay are substantial and quantifiable,” the spokesman said. “The Clayton Act and Rule 65 provide for a bond precisely to protect against exactly those types of losses if a court determines an injunction ultimately is unwarranted.” 

“We are confident that the evidence will show that these lawsuits are meritless and look forward to closing the transaction and delivering its benefits in California, across the United States, and around the world,” the spokesman said.