The Wary Watchdogs: Why State AGs Are Pushing Back Against Paramount’s Power Grab

The ongoing settlement talks between Paramount and the state attorneys general that sued to block its Warner Bros. Discovery deal have reached a critical juncture, but it’s clear that not all parties are satisfied with the proposed terms. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is reportedly open to considering certain restrictions on Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros., while at least two other AGs – New York’s Letitia James and Connecticut’s William Tong – are pushing for stricter measures.

The pushback from James and Tong stems from concerns about Paramount’s plans to achieve $6 billion in cost savings through the merger, which would likely translate to thousands of layoffs. While Paramount has promised to invest $1.5 billion in productions based in California as part of staying in the state, that commitment may not be enough to alleviate concerns about job security and industry-wide disruption.

A Pattern of Power Consolidation

The pushback against Paramount’s power grab is also a reflection of a larger trend: the increasing concentration of power in the media landscape. The merger of Paramount and Warner Bros. would create an enormous company with unprecedented influence over news and entertainment, controlling multiple outlets including CNN and CBS News.

The Justice Department and FCC have approved the transaction without asking for any concessions or remedies, raising eyebrows about their approach to such a large horizontal merger, especially given Paramount CEO David Ellison’s high-profile connections to President Donald Trump. Some have argued that this is about control over CNN specifically – a concern shared by Ellison himself in his New York Times op-ed.

The Illusion of Independence

When the same entity controls multiple media outlets, can we truly expect them to remain independent? A third-party “editorial adviser” may provide some semblance of oversight, but it’s a far cry from true editorial independence. As Tong put it, this merger would “destroy that competition, creating a massive company with unprecedented power and influence over news and entertainment across the globe.”

The opposition to Paramount-WBD is not just about antitrust concerns; it’s also about maintaining the integrity of journalism in this country. As Tong said, this merger poses a threat to consumers, workers, and artists alike.

The Clock is Ticking

Even if Paramount reaches a settlement with the state AGs, the Paramount-WB merger will not close immediately. With its intricate financing and other factors at play, we can expect at least a week or so after any deal with the states is in place before the dust settles.

Tong’s statement after the U.S. District Court granted the states’ request for a temporary restraining order was clear: “This is a critical victory for American consumers, for objective and independent journalism, and for the workers, actors, artists and fans of our country’s celebrated film and television industry.” The question now is whether this momentum will carry through to a more comprehensive solution.

The answer lies in the willingness of state AGs like James and Tong to push back against Paramount’s power grab. Will they succeed in securing stronger provisions for editorial independence and job protection? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the media landscape has never been more critical, and the stakes have never been higher.

The future of journalism – and our democracy itself – hangs in the balance as we wait with bated breath for the outcome of these settlement talks.