State attorneys general in the United States could move to block Paramount's planned $110 billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery as soon as next week, two people familiar with the situation said. The specific competitive harms that have drawn state concern were not detailed by those sources.
Advocacy organizations and certain state regulators have flagged a set of potential harms they believe could follow from the merger. Those concerns include higher subscription fees for streaming services, reductions in workforce headcount and a contraction in the diversity of films, news and other programming available to consumers.
Any legal challenge that delays the closing of the transaction would increase costs for Paramount, which is expected to carry approximately $80 billion of debt once the deal is finalized. To partially offset the risk of delay, Paramount's CEO David Ellison has agreed to a 25-cent-per-share "ticking fee" that would be paid to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders if the transaction has not closed by October; that fee amounts to roughly $650 million in cash on a quarterly basis.
Earlier in June, officials in California, New York and other states were reported to be preparing litigation while state regulators broadly seek to increase scrutiny of large mergers and acquisitions. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has taken a lead role in examining whether the proposed combination would violate U.S. laws that prohibit mergers that unlawfully lessen competition.
Representatives for the California attorney general's office did not provide comment when contacted. A Paramount spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Implications of a pre-emptive state lawsuit could span several sectors. The media and entertainment industries would face direct regulatory risk, while broader capital markets could be affected by increased uncertainty around the timing and cost of the transaction. For Paramount, the potential for mounting expenses during any court-imposed delay compounds near-term balance sheet pressure given the company's anticipated post-close debt load.
This situation remains fluid: the exact nature of the competition concerns raised by the states has not been publicly specified, and the timing and scope of any legal filing have not been confirmed by state officials.