Paramount Skydance agreed Tuesday to tie the antitrust merger case from 12 state attorneys general with a prior suit brought about by Paramount+ subscribers.
“Defendants Paramount Skydance Corporation and Skydance Media, LLC (together, Paramount’) agree with the relief requested in the State of California’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related,” the Tuesday filing stated. “… and respectfully join in the request for this Court to deem the action California v. Paramount Skydance Corp. … to be related to the action already pending this Court, Faust v. Paramount Skydance Corp.”
The filing added that Warner Bros. Discovery, a fellow defendant in the California action, “further joins in this response.”
This legal update means the states’ suit against the $110 billion Paramount-Warner merger will probably go before Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, who has been handling the aforementioned Paramount+ subscriber lawsuit.
As we previously reported, Paramount Skydance was hit with a lawsuit in April from five subscribers of its streamer, who sued the company on antitrust grounds over the WBD deal.
In the lawsuit filed in California federal court, the plaintiffs alleged that the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal, if allowed to be completed, would strengthen “Paramount’s ability and incentive to raise prices, reduce output, narrow slates, reduce quality and worsen consumer-facing terms, including through control of distribution, exclusivity, windowing and licensing.”
A spokesperson from Paramount stood by the merger, telling TheWrap at the time that the deal would “create a stronger competitor.”
“We are aware of the private action filed today in federal district court and are confident that it is without merit,” a spokesperson for Paramount told TheWrap in April. “The combination of Paramount and WBD will create a stronger competitor that is well positioned to serve as a champion for creative talent and consumer choice.”
A representative for Paramount did not immediately respond to TheWrap’s request for comment on Tuesday.
As we mentioned, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and 11 other state attorneys general sued to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger on Monday. Bonta led the charge with the filing, blasting the merger as “unlawful.”
“Today, I am leading 12 states in challenging the proposed merger of Warner Bros. and Paramount and asking the court to block the deal,” Bonta said in a statement. “California’s film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily. We’re going to court to fight for a free and fair market and protect this iconic industry.”
The state AGs have argued that the merger would create an entertainment giant with increased leverage over movie theaters, as well as cable and streaming platforms.
In response, a Paramount spokesperson shared that they plan to “vigorously defend the transaction and demonstrate that this challenge is inconsistent with sound competition policy and the competitive realities of the media marketplace.”
“Delaying this transaction will only harm entertainment workers,” the spokesperson continued at the time, “who have already suffered over recent years as technology has disrupted their livelihood and cost California tens of thousands of entertainment jobs.”
Bonta and the other AGs then requested a temporary restraining order and an injunction to prevent Paramount and WBD from closing its proposed merger.
“Defendants have represented to counsel for the State of California that they may close and consummate the Transaction as soon as July 22, 2026,” the Monday evening filing stated. “Immediate relief from the Court is necessary to preserve the status quo and to protect this Court’s ability to order appropriate relief upon a finding that the Transaction is unlawful.”
Bonta explained on CNN that the legal move was meant to “make sure that the proposed merger is halted during the pendency of the litigation.”
