California AG Rob Bonta says a CNN spin-off wouldn’t resolve Paramount–WBD lawsuit

 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta holds a press conference, next to the iconic Hollywood sign, as he announces a lawsuit to block Paramount's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Daniel Cole/Reuters

Lawyers for the 12-state coalition trying to block the Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery deal argued in court on Friday that a temporary restraining order (TRO) is necessary to stop the companies from completing the merger.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín also heard Paramount’s arguments against the TRO. As CNN reported earlier this week, the companies expect the judge to issue a TRO, effectively pausing the merger for a couple of weeks while the legal process plays out.

Judge Martínez-Olguín ultimately declined to rule on Friday and said she will issue a ruling on a temporary restraining order by Wednesday, July 22.

Ahead of Friday’s hearing, I spoke with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition of Democratic attorneys general against Paramount. Bonta also said he is “hopeful” a TRO will be granted, but acknowledged “it could take a few more days too.”

It was clear that Bonta wanted to address the widespread talk about CNN, the ticking fee, and the notion of Paramount moving out of California. He said some of his opponents are “trying to take things out of context and create confusion.”

But “our complaint couldn’t be clearer,” he said. Here are lightly edited excerpts from the conversation:

Are there any negotiations taking place with Paramount about a possible settlement?

“There are no negotiations. We are suing. We are in litigation. We have sued and sought a TRO and a preliminary injunction seeking to block the merger. That’s it. That’s full stop. That’s where we’re at.

“Of course, if Paramount–Warner Bros. want to come forward in good faith and sincerely want to make a settlement offer, we’ll always consider a settlement offer. And it would have to include structural remedies. We’re not interested in behavioral remedies — empty promises, self-serving promises, promises that are unenforceable, that won’t be kept, that history shows won’t be kept. So we’ll consider what they propose, but they haven’t proposed anything.”

You said structural remedies, plural. Is there a significance to that?

“Yeah, I don’t see how one single structural remedy [would be sufficient], unless that structural remedy is the two companies don’t merge, which is what we’re seeking.”