Bonta’s victory might be more than the accommodations he squeezed out of Paramount. He might have pushed California closer to being a monopolist of antitrust threats and enforcement.
The federal government cleared the deal in June after a “rigorous eight-month investigation” led by the U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division’s career staff – concluding the merger was unlikely to restrain competition or harm consumers. Overseas regulators representing 68 jurisdictions also approved the merger.
But that wasn’t enough for Bonta, who opposed the “unlawful merger” of “two entertainment behemoths,” and the 11 state attorneys general who joined the lawsuit. They argued the merger would reduce competition, raise prices, and limit film and television choices. Even as the parties came to terms over the weekend, Bonta declared the agreement wasn’t “a blessing of the broader merger,” and insists that “further consolidation in markets central to American economic life doesn’t serve the American economy, consumers, or competition well.”
Given the concessions that were extracted by Bonta, he should be happy with the outcome.
Not only will the company stay in California, it has to release 30 movies in each of the first two years and 32 in each of the following three. If Paramount doesn’t hit the minimum, it will have to pay a $30 million fine for each film below the target. Failing to hit the benchmark could also result in Paramount being forced to sell Miramax, a film and television production company in which it has a 49% ownership stake.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Who really won the Paramount-Warner Bros. spat?
Kerry Jackson
Bonta’s victory might be more than the accommodations he squeezed out of Paramount. He might have pushed California closer to being a monopolist of antitrust threats and enforcement.
The federal government cleared the deal in June after a “rigorous eight-month investigation” led by the U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division’s career staff – concluding the merger was unlikely to restrain competition or harm consumers. Overseas regulators representing 68 jurisdictions also approved the merger.
But that wasn’t enough for Bonta, who opposed the “unlawful merger” of “two entertainment behemoths,” and the 11 state attorneys general who joined the lawsuit. They argued the merger would reduce competition, raise prices, and limit film and television choices. Even as the parties came to terms over the weekend, Bonta declared the agreement wasn’t “a blessing of the broader merger,” and insists that “further consolidation in markets central to American economic life doesn’t serve the American economy, consumers, or competition well.”
Given the concessions that were extracted by Bonta, he should be happy with the outcome.
Not only will the company stay in California, it has to release 30 movies in each of the first two years and 32 in each of the following three. If Paramount doesn’t hit the minimum, it will have to pay a $30 million fine for each film below the target. Failing to hit the benchmark could also result in Paramount being forced to sell Miramax, a film and television production company in which it has a 49% ownership stake.
Read the entire op-ed here.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.