A 12-day jury trial is set to start March 2, 2027, for California’s antitrust lawsuit against the proposed merger of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery, a federal judge decided Aug. 4.
District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California chose the date after considering conflicting requests from both sides, she said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who spearheaded the lawsuit against two of Hollywood’s largest entertainment companies, told the judge the “industry-transforming” merger required an extended amount of time because it required significant discovery.
Evidence and information was needed from products and geographic markets, according to Bonta’s request.
Paramount requested the judge set a trail for Nov. 4—a date Bonta said was “unworkable” and “unjustified.” The time frame would deprive the states suing the company and the court an opportunity to gather evidence, Bonta said.
“These deadlines are simply unworkable,” Bonta wrote in the court filing.
The delay will be costly for Paramount and Warner Bros. The companies hoped to close the deal last month after receiving approval from European and Australian regulators, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, and Warner Bros. Discovery stockholders.
If Bonta’s request for an April trial had been granted, it would have added an additional $1 billion in costs for Paramount, and more than $1.9 billion if the case dragged on until June 2027, according to Forbes.
The merger agreement requires Paramount to continue defending the deal until June 2027. If the transaction is ultimately blocked, the company may owe Warner Bros. shareholders $7 billion.
A California Department of Justice spokesperson said the state was thankful for the court’s decision.
“We appreciate the court’s attention to this case and look forward to continuing to argue our case and blocking this unlawful merger,” the spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
The Writers Guild of America has joined California’s lawsuit, along with Washington State, Oregon, New York, New Mexico, New Jersey, Nevada, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Colorado, and Arizona.
The plaintiffs claim the merger would significantly reduce competition across film production, television, streaming services, and traditional cable networks. They say it would hurt theaters and basic cable distributors by eliminating choices, ultimately leading to higher prices, fewer choices for consumers, and diminished competition throughout the media industry.
At least 63 attorneys were listed on the lawsuit to represent the plaintiffs in the case.
The lawsuit alleged the acquisition is illegal under the 100-year-old Clayton Antitrust Act aimed at preventing monopolies.
The combined studios would control nearly one-third of cable programming, including 50 of the most popular cable channels, and would allow four distributors to control more than 90 percent of the blockbuster movies, according to Bonta.
Paramount didn’t immediately return a request for comment about the judge’s decision but defended the merger in a fact sheet online.
“They argue the deal would reduce competition and hurt theaters and basic cable distributors. But the lawsuit ignores the vibrant competition occurring every day to bring moviegoers to theaters and to earn viewers at home,” Paramount stated on a website dedicated to the lawsuit.
Paramount also said the states are using out-of-date market share data and a flawed view of the market.
“Delaying this transaction will only harm entertainment workers who have already suffered over recent years as technology has disrupted their livelihood and cost California tens of thousands of entertainment jobs,” Paramount told The Epoch Times in July.
