Paramount has petitioned a federal court to require 12 Democratic state attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America to post a $1.88 billion bond if they wish to proceed with their lawsuit aimed at blocking the proposed Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. The company’s request, outlined in recent court filings and public statements, escalates the legal battle over one of the entertainment industry’s most closely watched deals.

Explainer Voter Registration Integrity: Revealing Risks and Reform Paths for American Elections

Paramount argues that the lawsuit, brought by the coalition of state attorneys general and the Writers Guild, is now the sole remaining obstacle to finalizing the merger. The company contends that if the plaintiffs wish to pause the transaction during the litigation, they should be prepared to accept the financial consequences if their challenge is ultimately unsuccessful. Paramount maintains that the costs of delay are significant and measurable, and that the states should bear the risk of those losses if the court finds the lawsuit unwarranted.

The merger has already received clearance from the Department of Justice, but faces opposition from a coalition led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The group, which includes attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the Writers Guild of America, argues that the deal would reduce competition in the entertainment industry and harm consumers. They claim the merger would combine two major Hollywood studios, potentially resulting in higher prices for consumers, lower wages, job cuts, and a reduction in the number of movies and television shows produced.

Paramount’s legal team submitted its bond request on Tuesday, invoking provisions of the Clayton Act and Rule 65. According to the company, these rules are designed to protect parties against financial losses if an injunction is later determined to have been unwarranted. A Paramount spokesperson stated, “If plaintiffs insist that this transaction is paused during the pendency of their lawsuit, they must accept the financial consequences if their challenge ultimately fails.”

The company emphasized that the transaction is otherwise ready to close, with the lawsuits representing the only remaining barrier. Paramount’s release described the costs of delay as both substantial and quantifiable, underscoring the urgency of resolving the legal dispute. The company has not yet responded to additional requests for comment regarding the bond motion.

Ashley Baker, executive director of the Committee for Justice, criticized Paramount’s bond request, arguing that it would place an unfair financial burden on taxpayers. Baker described the lawsuit as politically motivated and called the bond demand irresponsible. “Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for a $1.88 billion bond request for a politically-motivated lawsuit is irresponsible, even for a radical attorney general like Rob Bonta,” Baker said.

State AGs and Political Pushback

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is leading the coalition challenging the merger. Bonta’s office contends that the proposed combination of Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount would eliminate competition between two of Hollywood’s largest studios, in violation of federal antitrust law. The office has warned that the merger could result in higher costs for consumers, lower wages for workers, job losses, and a decrease in the variety of movies and television shows available to audiences.

The legal challenge has sparked debate within the Democratic Party. In New Jersey, some Democratic officials have publicly opposed their state’s participation in the lawsuit, expressing concerns about potential economic harm. A group of 12 Hudson County officials published an op-ed urging New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport to withdraw from the case or seek a swift resolution, citing the risk to the state’s economy.

Ashley Baker noted that opposition to the lawsuit is not limited to New Jersey. She pointed to growing dissent among prominent Democratic officials, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who have reportedly expressed reservations about the legal effort.

Arguments Over Financial Risk

Paramount’s request for a $1.88 billion bond is intended to cover potential losses if the merger is delayed by the lawsuit and the court later determines the challenge was unwarranted. Baker claimed that if the bond is imposed, New Jersey residents could face a financial burden of $7 million per day, highlighting the potential impact on taxpayers in the states involved.

Baker called on the attorneys general to explain why they would expose their constituents to such financial risk, given the size of the bond Paramount is seeking. Paramount’s spokesperson reiterated the company’s confidence that the lawsuits are meritless and expressed optimism about closing the transaction once the legal challenges are resolved.

In response, Bonta’s office stated that it believes Paramount’s motion for a bond “has no merit.” The office said it looks forward to presenting its arguments at a court hearing scheduled for September 24, where the merits of the bond request and the underlying antitrust challenge will be considered.

The outcome of the hearing could determine whether the merger proceeds as planned or faces further delays. For now, the legal and political battle over the future of two of Hollywood’s largest studios continues to unfold, with significant financial and industry implications at stake.