Culture
Paramount Tells 12 States They Are Not Allowed To Have Opinions About Monopolies
By Bruno Von Falken, . BSN Network. Satire.
LOS ANGELES, CA. Paramount Global filed a legal response Friday to an antitrust lawsuit brought by twelve state attorneys general challenging its proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing in part that the states do not have the legal standing to regulate the deal and that their case will, quote, 'collapse under scrutiny.'
The filing does not specify what kind of scrutiny, or whether that scrutiny would be applied by someone other than Paramount's own lawyers.
The coalition of states, which includes California, New York, and ten others apparently with nothing better to do than enforce federal competition law, filed suit earlier this year on the grounds that combining two of the largest entertainment conglomerates in American history might be bad for competition. Paramount's legal team has responded to this concern with the legal equivalent of saying 'actually, you're not my dad.'
'The states lack the authority to regulate a transaction of this nature,' the brief argues, in a sentence that a spokesperson for the state of California read aloud twice before setting the paper down and going for a walk.
The core of Paramount's defense appears to be threefold: the states have no jurisdiction, the merger is fine, and even if it isn't fine, it isn't Paramount's fault. Legal scholars describe this as a 'layered approach.' One legal scholar described it as 'a to-do list written in a panic on the back of a receipt.'
Warner Bros. Discovery, for its part, has said the combined entity will create a stronger, more competitive media landscape, which is something every company says when it is about to become one fewer company. The merger would unite HBO, CNN, Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, CBS, MTV, BET, Nickelodeon, and approximately forty-five cable channels that everyone forgot existed. Together, the resulting entity would control enough intellectual property to litigate your childhood into submission.
The states allege that concentrating this much content, distribution, and market power under a single corporate umbrella raises serious anticompetitive concerns. Paramount's lawyers counter that the states are being dramatic, which is an interesting line of argument from a company that literally produces drama for a living.
Among the defenses Paramount may raise at trial is the claim that the relevant market has been defined too narrowly, that streaming competition from Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Disney adequately protects consumers, and that the whole thing will probably be fine. Netflix responded to being used as a legal shield with no comment. Amazon also had no comment. Disney issued a statement that contained the word 'magic' twice and no relevant information.
The trial is scheduled for March, which gives Paramount's lawyers approximately four months to construct a theory of antitrust law in which Paramount is not subject to antitrust law.
Attorneys general from the twelve states declined to comment on whether their case would collapse under scrutiny. It has not collapsed yet.
The story we are making fun of: https://variety.com/2026/film/news/paramount-answer-antitrust-case-1236859363/