Paramount is sharpening its courtroom defense against the states trying to stop its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, arguing in a new legal filing that the antitrust challenge is built on flawed assumptions and outdated views of the entertainment business.
In a response filed Friday, Paramount’s lawyers denied the allegations brought by a coalition of 12 states and previewed arguments the company may use when the case goes to trial on March 2, 2027. The filing sets up a major legal fight over the proposed merger, which the states contend would unlawfully concentrate power in parts of the media and entertainment marketplace.
Paramount’s position is blunt: the company says the case against the merger is weakening, not gaining strength.
“Day by day, the weak case against this Merger gets even weaker,” Paramount argued in the filing, adding that it intends to challenge the states’ market definitions. “Plaintiffs’ case amounts to a series of attempted shortcuts and assumptions that collapse under scrutiny.”
California led the lawsuit in July, with the state coalition seeking to block the deal on antitrust grounds. The states argue that the merger would create unlawful concentration in the basic cable market, as well as in the wide-release and blockbuster theatrical markets.
The U.S. Department of Justice had already approved the merger, issuing a memo explaining why it believed the transaction should be allowed to proceed. Paramount’s lawyers indicated they may argue that the state coalition lacks authority to regulate the merger, saying that power is “vested in the U.S. Department of Justice.” At the same time, states do have authority to bring claims alleging harms caused by conduct that violates federal antitrust law.
That tension is now central to the fight. States typically work with the DOJ in antitrust matters, but under the Trump administration, California and several other states have often pursued their own path.
Paramount has repeatedly maintained that the deal would be pro-competitive and would lead to more movies and television shows. In its response, the company also argued that the states’ case fails to account for how quickly the entertainment industry has shifted toward streaming.
“The way audiences consume content is changing rapidly. Streaming services now have greater viewership than movie theaters and cable television,” Paramount argued. “Plaintiffs’ case depends on ignoring this reality. It involves a series of gerrymandered markets based on cherry-picked data from the past. The alleged markets are not the product of sound economic analysis or current market realities. They have been invented for one purpose and one purpose only: to trigger a presumption — any presumption, no matter how weak — in the hopes the Court will look no further.”
The company’s formal denial of the states’ allegations was a necessary step to establish the legal controversy, but Paramount also used the filing to lay out a broader narrative: that the plaintiffs are defining markets too narrowly and ignoring current viewing behavior.
The challenge from the states is not the only legal obstacle facing the deal. The Writers Guild of America has filed its own lawsuit, arguing that the merger would reduce the marketplace for writers’ work. That case is scheduled to be heard alongside the states’ challenge at the March 2, 2027 trial.
Paramount has agreed not to close the deal until a ruling is issued after the trial. However, the company is asking the court to require the plaintiffs to post a $1.88 billion bond as the cost of continuing the litigation. A judge is set to hear arguments on that request on Sept. 24.
The company also pointed to Cinema United, the trade group for theater chains, which has called for a settlement.
What Happens Next?
The litigation calendar now includes several major checkpoints. The court is scheduled to hear arguments on Paramount’s $1.88 billion bond request on Sept. 24. In late October, the parties are set to attend a two-day settlement conference in the antitrust case.
That conference is a standard part of civil procedure and does not indicate whether a settlement is likely. If the dispute is not resolved before then, the states’ antitrust challenge and the Writers Guild of America’s lawsuit are set to proceed to trial together on March 2, 2027.