Attorneys representing Paramount Skydance have asked a federal judge to dismiss an ongoing antitrust lawsuit brought by pay television and streaming consumers over the media giant’s proposed merger with Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).
In a motion to dismiss filed in court on Thursday, lawyers for Paramount say the plaintiffs in the case raised “speculative” arguments centered on potential price increases for Paramount and WBD’s streaming services and the price cable and satellite operators pay for distribution of broadcast channels and cable networks, which are often passed along to subscribers.
“Antitrust merger litigation is not a sport; it is a serious matter that consumes the resources of the parties and the Court,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing. “Because this Complaint falls well short of the required pleading standards, it should be dismissed with prejudice.”
The lawyers said the legal challenge was brought by plaintiffs who lack standing in federal court because they haven’t identified a definitive injury tied to the proposed transaction.
Paramount said the complaint relies largely on speculative claims about future price increases and does not establish a causal connection between the merger and any alleged consumer harm.
The company also pushed back on claims that the merger would reduce political viewpoint diversity, arguing that such allegations are not a plausible basis for an antitrust case.
In a separate filing opposing the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, Paramount described the lawsuit as a “misguided attempt to politicize antitrust law.” The company said the transaction would give the combined business greater scale to compete with larger streaming rivals, including Netflix and Disney Plus.
Paramount argued that the merger would allow the companies to invest more effectively in film, television and streaming content while strengthening their ability to attract audiences across theatrical, cable and digital platforms.
The lawsuit also cited reporting that Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison offered assurances to Trump administration officials about potential changes at WBD-owned cable network CNN. Paramount’s legal team dismissed those claims as political attacks and said CNN would remain editorially independent.
The antitrust lawsuit brought by the consumers is not the only legal hurdle Paramount is facing: The potential acquisition of WBD is also being scrutinized by regulators in Europe and by the California Department of Justice.
During an online conference with reporters last month, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state has not decided whether to challenge Paramount’s deal for WBD in court, but said the acquisition raised “red flags everywhere.”
“We’re looking at things like higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, less quality, less choice, less competition — the things that you look at when you’re looking at an antitrust case and a proposed merger,” Bonta said.
Paramount and WBD operate film studios in California, and both companies have national news bureaus in the state. Paramount also owns six television stations that are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — two each in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento.
While the deal does not involve the transfer of broadcast licenses between the companies, the FCC is scrutinizing Paramount’s proposed acquisition of WBD because the deal is being bankrolled in part by foreign investors, who are likely to take equity stakes in the newly-formed company. The FCC has limitations on foreign ownership of companies with licensed TV stations; Paramount has asked for a waiver of these rules in order to move forward on the deal.
