Paramount pushed back on an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, deeming the complaint “long on rhetoric and fearmongering” but falling short of stating a viable claim that the deal harms competition.
“Antitrust merger litigation is not a sport; it is a serious matter that consumes the resources of the parties and the Court. Because this Complaint falls well short of the required pleading standards, it should be dismissed with prejudice,” Paramount’s legal team, led by Jeffrey Kessler, wrote in a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland on Thursday.
In April, five pay-TV and streaming services subscribers filed a lawsuit challenging the merger, claiming, among other things, that the acquisition would increase prices and diminish the diversity of viewpoints.
In its filing, Paramount’s legal team argued that the plaintiffs — Pamela Faust, Len Marazzo, Lisa McCarthy, Deborah Rubinsohn and Gary Talewsky — do not have standing.
“Their allegations of injury consist almost entirely of speculative, barebones assertions with no factual support,” Paramount’s lawyers argued in the filing. “Their sole allegation of purported concrete injury (a single price increase on Paramount’s streaming service, Paramount+) lacks factual allegations suggesting any causal connection between this price increase and the Skydance-Paramount merger.”
The company reps also contended that “their allegation that the mergers will deprive them of a ‘diversity’ of political ‘viewpoints’ in the news media are neither factually plausible nor the type of economic harm that can support an antitrust claim.”
Read Paramount’s motion to dismiss antitrust case.
Paramount’s lawyers also claimed that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim of competitive harm from the merger.
“Plaintiffs’ three alleged markets sprawl across film, television, and news media, but none of them are plausible or consistent with governing legal and economic principles,” the company’s legal team stated.
In a separate filing opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, Paramount’s legal team called the lawsuit a “misguided attempt to politicize antitrust law.” They also made the case for the merger itself.
“To compete most effectively against leading streaming platforms like Netflix and Disney+, the merging parties require greater scale and investment in high-quality, compelling content that will drive moviegoers to theaters and attract viewers to cable television and streaming services,” the filing stated.
Paramount’s team also accused the plaintiffs of lobbing “baseless political attacks” against the merger. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit cited Wall Street Journal reporting that Paramount CEO David Ellison offered assurances to Trump administration officials that he would make sweeping changes to CNN, a frequent target of the president. In the filing, Paramount’s lawyers wrote that “CNN will remain editorially independent.”
Read Paramount’s opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
An attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment.
The proposed merger is being reviewed by the Justice Department and European regulators, while California Attorney General Rob Bonta has said that his team is scrutinizing the transaction.
