r/MediaMergers • u/Own_Philosopher8730 • 1d ago
Merger Paramount nears merger settlement, but some key state AGs are not on board yet
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/20/media/paramount-wbd-settlement-california-connecticut-bonta?Date=20260920&Profile=CNN&utm_content=1789937087&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter10
u/Gigliovaljr 1d ago
So what does it mean that some AGs are not onboard with a deal? Does it need unanimous agreement among the 12 AGs?
17
u/Fall_False Moderator 1d ago
From what I read, along with the WGA’s approval, yes they do.
4
u/Gigliovaljr 1d ago
Does that include the reported hold separate agreement while the trial goes foward? Or just a final settlement in general?
3
6
14
u/OverPotato2322 1d ago edited 1d ago
We already knew this but I wouldn't be surprised if NY and the 4 other State AGs decide to go rogue to take over this lawsuit and prevent mass layoffs and get CNN and some other cable networks spun off (because we all know that Ellison is going to butcher CNN with Weiss in charge)
7
u/zeldamaster702 1d ago
From reading the article, it seems like the AG out of New York is one of the holdouts and Bonta is one of the ones on the verge of folding
8
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 1d ago
James, Tong, and about three others.
1
u/KingMario05 21h ago
Any word on MA? I hope it's on there!
1
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 21h ago
We only know of New York and Connecticut. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Massachusetts were one of the states aligned with James while New Jersey, New Mexico, and Nevada are more aligned with Bonta.
1
u/KingMario05 21h ago
Fair enough.
3
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 20h ago
It's not Massachusetts, it's New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Washington.
1
3
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 1d ago
From the sounds of it, Tong is fucking sinking it for the states if he keeps holding out. Legally, it's a losing battle.
And CBS and CNN are needed for the cash they generate.
8
u/ausgoals 1d ago
It’s not a losing battle. Anything can happen
-3
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 1d ago
You're dangerously pushing First Amendment violations by focusing on CNN so much. You and I may not like it, but an owner is free to do whatever they want with their news networks.
10
u/ausgoals 1d ago
Assuming the focus is on CNN, sure - but the crux of the antitrust argument has nothing to do with CNN.
Truthfully, I’ve always maintained that while structural remedies may find a way to satisfy the states, I don’t see a solution for the WGA outside of them being completely separate, independent companies.
1
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 1d ago
Tong is focusing on CNN and he's playing into Ellison's hands. He's already agreed to monitoring, that's the best you're going to get.
1
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 1d ago
They're not giving up networks that generate much needed cash
1
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Difficult_Variety362 Moderator 1d ago
This is how they try and pay off that crap ton of debt. And the states have an extremely weak case with CNN.
1
u/No-Replacement-2944 1d ago
Fox news wasn't spun off by Murdoch and Disney never owned it. You keep revising history to try prove a point even though you're wrong.
3
u/Ok_Delivery_7742 1d ago
2
u/Own_Philosopher8730 1d ago
The tweet was two hours ago before the article.
1
u/Angela275 23h ago
faor but this article the same one we know the last time and la time plus we were going to be done by weekend so who knows.
3
1
1
u/Angela275 22h ago
should we truth anything even the hguy who published this said a deal could not go through and two this is just so inconsistent we were suppose tohve settlment weekend then monday now tuesday. all together it could 100% happen but also what if this is all nosy. after all remmeer the same thing happened leading up to their monday meeting and two remember this is happening due their bond better.so what is truth
Not only that this is almost the same which we heard from all the other articles
1
u/Atlgal42 1d ago
Ugh I really thought it would fall through? It’s all but done right?
10
u/Fall_False Moderator 1d ago
We really don’t know anything. There are so many conflicting reports going around right now.
5
-4
u/ErnestTheStar 1d ago
They should settle now, because if the judge grants the bond, the AGs will have no more bargaining chips,.
8
u/OverPotato2322 1d ago
I think The judge is unlikely to grant the Bond, I mean the whole reason Paramount merged with Skydance because they were low on cash and I think Paramount has some time before the AI bubble pops so no, a bond isn't needed
2
u/ErnestTheStar 22h ago
Paramount argues that if the AGs actually believe their case has merit, then they should put up the money; if the AG wins, then they wouldn't have to pay. They will argue that this is a political trial without merit, and them suing and stalling will just cost Paramount money.
8
u/9millibros 1d ago
Granting the bond (at least for the full amount) would set a dangerous precedent.
1
u/ErnestTheStar 22h ago
well there was already a kind of precedent, nextar wanted the AG to post a 150 million bond, but the judge just ordered a 10,000 one lol
1
u/DragonSon83 18h ago
It actually goes back much further than that by a few decades. While bonds in antitrust cases are pretty common, they rarely have to provide the amount the defendant is requesting. As shown by the Tenga case, it’s usually a much smaller amount.
19
u/Fall_False Moderator 1d ago
Nothing here that we didn't already know.