Block the Merger and other groups have successfully delayed the Paramount-Warner merger again

A coalition of press freedom and film groups won an emergency motion to file briefs opposing Paramount’s settlement with 12 state attorneys general. A judge granted it hours before a hearing expected to approve the deal. Paramount starts owing about $7 million a day on Oct. 1.

A handful of nonprofits just slowed down a $111 billion merger again even though major Hollywood unions, theater unions and chains, and more are on board to save jobs.

On Sept. 24, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted an emergency motion from the Block the Merger coalition, allowing outside groups to file briefs opposing Paramount’s settlement with state attorneys general over its Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition.

The ruling landed roughly an hour before a hearing widely expected to approve the deal.

Where things stood before this

Four days earlier, the path looked clear.

On Sept. 21, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general announced a settlement resolving their antitrust suit against the merger.

That left one box to check: a judge signing off on the consent decree. Paramount CEO David Ellison told staff he expected the Warner Bros. deal to close in about two weeks.

Then the coalition filed its motion.

The delay has a price tag

Here’s why Paramount fought this hard.

Under its acquisition agreement, Paramount begins accruing a ticking fee of roughly $7 million per day payable to Warner Bros. Discovery as of Oct. 1.

Every day the settlement sits unapproved after that date costs money. Paramount argued in court that a delay would “inflict massive harm” on the company.

The judge granted the motion anyway, with a hard deadline: all amicus briefs due by 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 25, maximum 10 pages, no extensions and no late filings.

Who actually filed

The Block the Merger brief came from five organizations:

• Free Press

• Committee for the First Amendment

• Freedom of the Press Foundation

• Future Film Coalition

• International Documentary Association

The League of United Latin American Citizens filed separately. Religious leaders and a civil rights group also sought to file.

The coalition’s argument is that the settlement is too weak to matter.

“While we may never know what caused the radical turnabout to deliver such a toothless settlement, we do know that this consent decree bucks governmental safeguards designed to protect the public from harm,” the brief reads. “The court should reject it outright.”

Jessica J. González, co-CEO of Free Press and co-counsel on the motion, called the attorneys general deal “weak and unenforceable.”

But it is important to point out that these groups have been campaigning to stop the merger entirely. Most likely, no settlement would be “enough” for them, even with catastrophic job and tax losses are the result.

What the settlement actually requires

The agreement isn’t nothing. Whether it’s enough is the dispute.

Paramount would be required to:

• Invest in domestic TV and film production

• Release at least 30 films a year in theaters

• Negotiate cable network distribution deals separately for each company

• Establish an independent editorial board overseeing CNN and CBS News

• Keep both studio lots operating for five years

Penalties for missing those terms include $30 million per film below the theatrical minimum, and forced divestiture of the company’s 49% stake in Miramax.

Critics call these behavioral remedies, meaning promises about future conduct rather than structural changes to the deal itself. The debate is whether promises are enforceable enough to protect competition.

A senator wrote to the judge

The opposition extended to Congress.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey sent a letter urging Martínez-Olguín “to subject the proposed consent decree to an independent public-interest review before entering it.”

Booker argued the court should weigh the settlement against what the states originally wanted. “The decree does not address the core of the case,” he wrote, “that the merger is anticompetitive.”

It is also important to note that people like Booker and these groups allowed other mergers, including Disney buying Fox. Those deals were very similar, but this specific deal is an issue now.

Many are calling out the hypocritical nature of the backlash given Disney’s gigantic share of the market and the lawsuits they have faced for actually driving up prices on customers.

The judge raised the relocation threat in court

One exchange at Thursday’s hearing stood out.

Martínez-Olguín referenced reporting that Ellison told his senior leadership Paramount would relocate out of California if the merger were blocked. Her framing was pointed: “This is an antitrust case.”

Paramount attorney Josh Holian of Latham & Watkins pushed back.

“I don’t agree that anybody was blackmailing anybody,” Holian said. “Paramount has to make business decisions about where it’s going to run its operations, but it’s business decisions. It’s not blackmail. It’s not a threat.”

Paramount’s potential departure from California has been circulating in the industry for months. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer publicly urged the company to stay back in August.

Where it stands now

The briefs are filed. The judge has not ruled.

Martínez-Olguín has questioned what she called the factual and legal underpinnings of the proposed settlement, and pressed on specific provisions including the Miramax divestiture condition.

Paramount is raising $7.5 billion in debt to help fund the acquisition. Regulatory filings show Larry Ellison personally guaranteeing a funding obligation of $44.6 billion.

Nobody has said how long a decision will take. The Oct. 1 clock is six days out.

Article compiled with the help of the Pirates & Princesses newsroom.

Pirates and Princesses is your destination for Disney news, theme park updates, and the pop culture you love. From Disney cruises and travel tips to Disney fashion, food, collectibles, and movie news, PNP covers it all. Visit us at piratesandprincesses.net for daily coverage. Follow PNP on Facebook and Instagram, and listen to the Pirates & Princesses podcast on Apple Podcasts and YouTube.

Hat Tips:

• Variety (Sept. 24 and 25, 2026), the amicus brief filing and its signatories, the courtroom exchange over the relocation comments, the Josh Holian quotes and the $7 million daily ticking fee

• Deadline (Sept. 24, 2026), Dominic Patten’s reporting on the emergency motion ruling, the Cory Booker letter and the hearing timing

• TheWrap (Sept. 24, 2026), the full settlement terms, the penalty structure and the Miramax divestiture condition

• IndieWire (Sept. 24, 2026), the Jessica González quote and the coalition’s characterization of the settlement

• MLex and Digital Watch Observatory (Sept. 24, 2026), the court order details, the 10-page limit and the Sept. 21 settlement background

• Warner Bros. Discovery SEC filings (2026), the funding guarantee figures

AI Disclosure: All articles are assigned, edited and reviewed by an experienced human editor before posting. Like most modern newsrooms, WebReef Media uses a variety of AI tools to help with accuracy and efficiency. Ways AI may be used in article creation include research, grammar, fact-checking and ideation, as well as occasional AI generated or enhanced thumbnails or graphics. No articles are generated or posted without human oversight or involvement.