Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, speaks during a House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee at the U.S. Capitol on November 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. The AG is suing to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger and has strong words for the people carrying it out. Eric Lee/Getty Images The road to a Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery deal as been littered with many hurdles for David Ellison. The would-be mogul has cleared them all — save one. That would be, of course, the dozen attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta, whose antitrust lawsuit last month seeking to block the merger has been a thorn in Ellison’s side. It could force the divestiture of Warner Bros. assets and cost more than a billion dollars in ticking-clock fees ahead of a March trial, among other consequences. So far, the Northern California District Court judge has been relatively favorable to the states’ case, allowing it to move forward with little impediment (and setting the date far enough away to cost Ellison a lot of money). Ellison in recent weeks has sought to beat back Bonta with a slew of moves — a foot-soldier media blitz, a threat to leave California and a motion to force Bonta’s hand by making taxpayers pay the ticking-clock fees. Bonta has been relatively silent on these moves, giving few interviews. But he spoke with The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday, offering a mix of rhetoric both fiery and eyeroll-y about what the Paramount owner has been doing. With each week that passes, Bonta’s leverage grows, though a few Hollywood guilds have flipped, potentially undermining that leverage. Here’s what Bonta has to say about all of it. The last few weeks have certainly brought a lot of efforts by David Ellison to put pressure on you on multiple fronts — the media, the industry, the courtroom. Let’s start with the courtroom and the motion this week to hang taxpayers on the hook for a very large sum of money if you lose the case. How did that land with you? I just don’t think it’s going anywhere. There’s no basis for it. Honestly it seems like they’re grasping at straws. The judge already decided in the temporary restraining border on the issuance of a bond [for the state to put up nearly $2 billion] and she said no. Paramount voluntarily — on their own, without California forcing them to — decided to enter an agreement with Warner Bros for this ticking fee. They’re very sophisticated and they decided to do that. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. And they agreed not to close the merger until ’27. And because of that they want us to post the bond? I just don’t see it. I think [the motion] says more about them and their desperate position than anything else. The threatened move out of California is another stick Ellison appears to be using to force you to think about a settlement. Is it having that effect? I literally envision them sitting in a war room saying “we’re getting our butts kicked, what can we do? What rabbit out of a hat can we pull to try to impose some pressure on the Attorney General? We know the Attorney General loves having jobs in California. Maybe we can threaten to leave? It’s a Hail Mary, but let’s try it! Anyone else got anything better?” I don’t know what they’re thinking. I do know it’s not working. If their goal is to apply pressure, no pressure felt, no pressure applied. Honestly it reveals more than it tries to impose. What it reveals is that they’re on the back foot, they’re reeling. They’re losing in court. And David Ellison has to explain why he’s talking out of two sides of his mouth. Out of one side he’ll say “I believe in Hollywood, I believe in the future of Hollywood, my future is here.” And then from the other side of the mouth he’s saying “I’m pulling out of California.” I don’t know how he harmonizes those two things. Let’s say for argument’s sake — and I think most observers believe it’s not an actionable threat — but let’s say he did pull off some kind of move to Nashville or Atlanta. Would you lose standing if he did — does the case go away? Absolutely not. This is a lawsuit where the geographic jurisdiction is the United States of America and the American economy. So no matter where he goes we will continue to have our lawsuit, we will continue to have standing. Remember, this is 12 attorneys general from all over the country who brought this lawsuit. Paramount Studios are only in California but Paramount/Skydance operates in the United States of America. Anywhere he goes in the United States of America he cannot flee accountability. You can’t escape accountability. You mention no pressure felt. The last week has brought a shift from some Hollywood groups — the DGA and IATSE wrote you a letter saying they wanted a settlement. Earlier today Cinema United, the movie-theater group, said they favor a settlement too. How is that playing into your calculus to continue? The WGA has sued [to stop the merger]. SAG-AFTRA has taken a position against the merger. The Teamsters also. We’re always happy to hear from stakeholders, from those impacted. Cinema United has changed position. We were interested when they were opposing, we’re interested now that they’re — I don’t know if they’re pro-merger or pro-settlement talks, I think it’s pro-settlement talks, which I see as neutral — but to that issue, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Coming to the table is always on the table. But Paramount-Warner Bros breaking the law and us allowing it to happen — that’s never OK. If Paramount wants to come to the table to sincerely talk about a proposed settlement, we’re all ears. That’s something we like to do, something we prefer to do — we prefer to resolve disputes in the boardroom instead of the courtroom if we can. Sometimes we can’t, so we go to trial. But we always said if Paramount wants to propose real, robust, structural — structural, not behavioral — remedies that address what we set forth in our complaint, we’re happy to talk about it. It seems to me that every week that goes by you have more leverage because of the ticking clock. But having some the guilds and groups reversing position dings that leverage. Is that a fair assessment? I think what some of these stakeholders are interested in is a resolution as soon as possible. Certainty is something there looking for. To me it’s important to know that they value it and why they value it. But I don’t see that as pressure. There’s a time to talk about settlement. I don’t see the encouragement of settlement as pressure at all. I guess another way to see it is that time is definitely on your side but these groups don’t necessarily feel time is on their side. So maybe that’s a bit of misalignment? I think the facts are on our side. We just want to bring our case and it takes time to bring our case, particularly when they [Paramount] were foot-dragging and slow in responding to our requests for information in the investigative phase. We are where we are because of them. They may be feeling pressure because of time but that’s self-imposed. We just want to bring our case. And IATSE and the DGA saying that the longer it goes on the fewer projects will get greenlit and the more jobs in California could be jeopardized — is that something that factors into your thinking? Well the fact that some of the stakeholders are saying that now is of interest but I’ll say that if Paramount-Warner Bros were forthcoming with us and didn’t slow-walk us this it could be resolved faster. They took their time and now they’re saying “time is not on our side, hurry up everybody!” Like, make a choice. Be consistent. If we have the information quicker we could move quicker. We just want the normal time. We don’t want to be rushed. But we’re not trying to slow this down either. From a complaint to a full-blown trial in less than a year — that’s pretty darn fast. I’m in a case with Meta right now that’s been years. The time issue is Paramount’s issue. You mentioned you see “pro-settlement” as neutral. Your predecessor, current Democratic candidate for governor Xavier Becerra, made a comment that he’s interested in a settlement. How did you read them and have you talked to him at all about it? Do you see that as misaligned with the path you’re taking? I thought it was aligned with how I see my work. I was gratified to see he sees it the same way I do. We share this view that we prefer when possible to resolve disputes in the boardroom instead of the courtroom. When he said that I thought it was totally aligned with my own views and philosophy. So it didn’t feel to you like he was sending a signal to you or any of the other AGs, “hey get on with it, don’t take this all the way to trial.” No, I took it as consistent with my views. I have to ask about Governor Newsom and the report in the Journal that he was, behind the scenes, expressing his concerns with the suit and putting pressure on you for a settlement. Do you see any daylight between the two of you? Not really. He’s an incredible governor. I can’t talk about him with lauding him. I just think he’s an amazing governor and a great friend and his contributions are innumerable to this state and I look forward to what he does in the future. He’s got a lot more chapters to write. We talk and I’m grateful to be able to talk to the governor of the biggest state in the nation as frequently and accessibly as I do. If the governor thought that anytime he had a conversation with me I’d talk to the press about it then I wouldn’t have those conversations anymore [laughs]. So it’s out of respect to him and our relationship I won’t comment on our conversations. But I will say that I expect him to have a view about many things, including many of the cases that we’re working on. We’ve sued together on our tariffs case. We’ve stood at the podium together to talk about the lawsuits against the Trump administration and how much money we’re protecting for California, how many rights and freedoms we’re protecting for California and so many wins we have on the National Guard and tariffs and defending Prop 50 redistricting. I’m proud of all that. So I don’t know what he’s told other people. If he’s shared things about his views on this case that’s between him and them. You are very lockstep with the two candidates for mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass and Nithya Raman. There are two candidates but also one mayor. Mayor Bass and I are friends and Councilmember Raman and I are also friendly and we work together. I’m grateful they’re both on the same page on this. They may not agree on everything but it’s good to know they both agree on the validity and importance of this lawsuit we’re bringing. Let’s talk about structural vs. behavioral remedies, which is a distinction you’ve been eager to emphasize. How do you define those two terms in this particular case? Would, for example, a commitment to 30 theatrical movies that Ellison has floated fit the former definition if it can be enforced? Structural remedies are keeping corporate entities separate or splitting up a single corporate entity in two. So, no, a commitment to produce a certain amount of movies is definitely behavioral. It’s a way that they will behave in the future without changing their corporate structure at all. And it’s proven [in the past] difficult to enforce and unlikely to actually materialize. It sounds good on paper but down the line when it comes down to actually making a movie the movie’s not made or it’s a B-movie without a lot of investment just to check the box and meet the quota. And if they decide “hey this isn’t going to work, we’re really not going to do it [make the movie],” there’s really no recourse. That’s why behavioral remedies are dispreffered and structural resides are preferred. One example of a structural remedy is on cable-channel licensing. If these two entertainment titans merge they will be a behemoth; they will own 50 of the most sought-after channels in America, from children’s programming to late-night programming to news to sports. A structural remedy for that market would be taking a suite of cable channels to another owner so Paramount-Warner Bros. wouldn’t own them.
Related Stories
Business Paramount Has Spent 100 Years in Hollywood. David Ellison Loved That. Until He Didn't
Business David Ellison Breaks Silence on Antitrust Lawsuit: It's Not About Market Share, It's About CNN
Do you have a number of channels, or a certain aggregate viewership, in your head — an internal formula of what would sufficiently address your concerns? We do. We have some ideas given the different types of channels and what an appropriate landing spot would be. When the time comes to engage with the court or with Paramount-Warner Bros. on the issue we’ll be prepared for that. Shifting gears to the media of it all, the campaign from Paramount has been unlike anything I can recall a mogul undertaking in a proposed merger, from big-name foot soldiers out there arguing for it to go through to Ellison’s own op-ed in The New York Times to so much else. How much do you think it’s moving the needle? Basically not at all. I think it’s misdirected and misses the mark. The only thing that matters is what happens in the courtroom. It’s not like a popularity contest — they get more people to support the merger and the merger is going to go through. I honestly think they’re wasting their time by mounting this seemingly massive PR campaign. That literally seemingly has injected and seeded lies into the environment. Like saying this is all about CNN and if CNN is divested or sold to a new owner the AGs will settle immediately. Not true yesterday, not true today, not true tomorrow. It’s false. It’s a lie. And to focus on that is just not productive. I have really recommended Paramount-Warner Bros. look at our complaint. This isn’t some cloak-and-dagger thing where we’re saying one thing but really we mean another. We mean what we say in our complaint. It’s all laid out right there. It’s been there since the day we filed it. That’s what we focus on, that’s we care about, and these are the things that need to be cured. If they spent more time focusing on that than this PR campaign that they’re mounting that talks about other things that are not relevant, like the streaming market and CNN and foreign regulators, I think it would be more productive. Do you understand why people say that, that CNN and CBS News consolidating is something that you’d be concerned about? I know why others are concerned about it. When you take off your antitrust enforcement hat and just look at the future of democracy, future of the free press, of course I understand. And there’s a part of me that’s not the antitrust enforcement part of me that feels similarly. As a citizen of the United States, as someone who cares about the future of democracy, as someone who believes in a free and independent press, as someone who believes that the press should do investigative journalism and should truth-seek and truth-tell and hold the powerful’s feet to the fire, hold them accountable. Yeah, that part of me understands why people raise that. But this is not that. This is an antitrust case. I can’t go into court and say “I care about the free press” or tell the judge my views on democracy. She’s going to be like “are you going to tell me what kind of lawsuit you have and why you think you can have an antitrust enforcement?” This is only now and ever was and ever will be just a straight-up meat-and-potatoes, black-and-white antitrust case. And I think that Paramount-Warner Bros. focusing on that would be healthy for this entire endeavor.
THR Newsletters
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Subscribe Sign Up
