Tag: Deadline News

Paramount wants a trial to start in November in the antitrust lawsuit brought by a dozen state attorneys general and the Writers Guild America. Not surprisingly, the state AGs and the guild want an April start to the proceedings.

The sides outlined their proposals ina joint filing Friday, with the ultimate decision on scheduling left to the federal judge in the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

“The parties have discussed the trial schedule, but they have not reached agreement,” the parties wrote.

The trial dates are hugely important for the transaction, and even Paramount’s proposed date likely will cost the company hundreds of millions. After September 30, Paramount will be on the hook for about $7 million for every day that the transaction doesn’t close, under an agreement with WBD that was a sweetener to the deal.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ request to delay proceedings until April is nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that goes well beyond the timelines sought in similar prior proceedings and ignores the substantial evidence plaintiffs have already received in this matter. Delay will also harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 states in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives. This challenge deserves careful and thorough review and today my office and attorneys general across the country asked the court for a trial date next spring. We are eager to continue to make our case and look forward to a final determination of the schedule by the court.”

Last week, Paramount said it would not close the merger until June 1, 2027, or until days after the legal issues are resolved, and indicated it wanted to go directly to trial. Its announcement came just days after the judge granted the state AGs a temporary restraining order that prohibited the transaction from closing for 14 days, an order that was later extended to 28 days.

The company spokeswoman said a trial “on the merits is the best and most direct way for us to prove what we’ve said from the start — this transaction is lawful, pro-competitive, and raises no antitrust concerns.”

In the filing Friday, Paramount proposed a 12-day trial starting November 4 that would encompass the cases brought by the states and the WGA.

Paramount also noted that the later date would give the judge “much less time to decide” the case by June, the outside date it had set for the merger to close, as well as time for the company to appeal.

Among other things, they noted that the DOJ’s antitrust case seeking to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner went to trial on March 19, 2018, four months after the federal government brought the case. Makan Delrahim, who is Paramount’s chief legal officer, was then the chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division; on the other side was attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Time Warner, and now representing WBD in this case.

The company also noted that Bonta had last week favored a January trial start, but now was proposing a date four months later.

“Given the stakes of this case, there is no basis and no time to delay for the sake of delay, particularly when delay significantly prejudices Defendants and the Hollywood ecosystem more broadly,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing.

The company also argued that Paramount and the WGA will have had sufficient time for discovery.

Paramount’s legal team wrote, “State Plaintiffs had six-plus months before they filed their complaint to conduct unilateral discovery regarding the proposed transaction. State Plaintiffs also had the benefit of waivers granted by Defendants to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to share with State Plaintiffs all information and materials that Defendants produced to the DOJ. In sum, the discovery that State Plaintiffs received many months ago includes over two million documents from more than 80 of Defendants’ employees.”

The company’s legal team noted that the later date would require them to refile merger materials with the Justice Department, which has already cleared the transaction, and that it would leave the creative community in a period of uncertainty, as Paramount plans to boost production to 30 films per year.

The state AGs and WGA proposed a start of April 5, 2027, lasting at least 12-15 days, with each plaintiff presenting their cases sequentially.

The state plaintiffs wrote that extensive discovery is needed, including of “the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets, the nature and scope of harm in those markets, whether expansion by other firms will prevent harm in those markets, and whether the merger will produce verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to outweigh harm in those markets.”

They pointed specifically to areas like Paramount’s assertion that the merger will generate billions in synergies, “a claim that Plaintiff States are entitled to test in discovery, including discovery of Defendants’ integration plans for their merged company.”

The states noted that Paramount’s document productions “largely cut off” before the merger agreement was signed in February, leaving the plaintiffs with few internal documents about post-closing plans.

The state AGs wrote, “Defendants’ pre-complaint productions also do nothing to address the need for discovery from third party customers and competitors. Importantly, no depositions of percipient fact witnesses from Defendants or third parties have occurred.”

The states also contended that their schedule was “reasonable,” claiming that the 402 days from the signing of the merger agreement on February 27 to the proposed trial date “moves this case to trial more rapidly than virtually every merger case in recent history.” The AT&T-Time Warner trial started 513 days after the merger deal was signed, they noted, as opposed to when the DOJ lawsuit was filed. The state AGs also wrote that an April trial would still leave the judge with time to decide the case by June.

The state AGs also called Paramount’s proposed schedule “one-sided,” arguing, “Their extraordinarily truncated schedule unfairly favors Defendants because they (1) have information Plaintiff States need to prove their case and (2) do not bear the burden of persuasion.”

Paramount wants a trial to start in November in the antitrust lawsuit brought by a dozen state attorneys general and the Writers Guild America. Not surprisingly, the state AGs and the guild want an April start to the proceedings.

The sides outlined their proposals ina joint filing Friday, with the ultimate decision on scheduling left to the federal judge in the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

“The parties have discussed the trial schedule, but they have not reached agreement,” the parties wrote.

The trial dates are hugely important for the transaction, and even Paramount’s proposed date likely will cost the company hundreds of millions. After September 30, Paramount will be on the hook for about $7 million for every day that the transaction doesn’t close, under an agreement with WBD that was a sweetener to the deal.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ request to delay proceedings until April is nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that goes well beyond the timelines sought in similar prior proceedings and ignores the substantial evidence plaintiffs have already received in this matter. Delay will also harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 states in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives. This challenge deserves careful and thorough review and today my office and attorneys general across the country asked the court for a trial date next spring. We are eager to continue to make our case and look forward to a final determination of the schedule by the court.”

Last week, Paramount said it would not close the merger until June 1, 2027, or until days after the legal issues are resolved, and indicated it wanted to go directly to trial. Its announcement came just days after the judge granted the state AGs a temporary restraining order that prohibited the transaction from closing for 14 days, an order that was later extended to 28 days.

The company spokeswoman said a trial “on the merits is the best and most direct way for us to prove what we’ve said from the start — this transaction is lawful, pro-competitive, and raises no antitrust concerns.”

In the filing Friday, Paramount proposed a 12-day trial starting November 4 that would encompass the cases brought by the states and the WGA.

Paramount also noted that the later date would give the judge “much less time to decide” the case by June, the outside date it had set for the merger to close, as well as time for the company to appeal.

Among other things, they noted that the DOJ’s antitrust case seeking to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner went to trial on March 19, 2018, four months after the federal government brought the case. Makan Delrahim, who is Paramount’s chief legal officer, was then the chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division; on the other side was attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Time Warner, and now representing WBD in this case.

The company also noted that Bonta had last week favored a January trial start, but now was proposing a date four months later.

“Given the stakes of this case, there is no basis and no time to delay for the sake of delay, particularly when delay significantly prejudices Defendants and the Hollywood ecosystem more broadly,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing.

The company also argued that Paramount and the WGA will have had sufficient time for discovery.

Paramount’s legal team wrote, “State Plaintiffs had six-plus months before they filed their complaint to conduct unilateral discovery regarding the proposed transaction. State Plaintiffs also had the benefit of waivers granted by Defendants to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to share with State Plaintiffs all information and materials that Defendants produced to the DOJ. In sum, the discovery that State Plaintiffs received many months ago includes over two million documents from more than 80 of Defendants’ employees.”

The company’s legal team noted that the later date would require them to refile merger materials with the Justice Department, which has already cleared the transaction, and that it would leave the creative community in a period of uncertainty, as Paramount plans to boost production to 30 films per year.

The state AGs and WGA proposed a start of April 5, 2027, lasting at least 12-15 days, with each plaintiff presenting their cases sequentially.

The state plaintiffs wrote that extensive discovery is needed, including of “the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets, the nature and scope of harm in those markets, whether expansion by other firms will prevent harm in those markets, and whether the merger will produce verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to outweigh harm in those markets.”

They pointed specifically to areas like Paramount’s assertion that the merger will generate billions in synergies, “a claim that Plaintiff States are entitled to test in discovery, including discovery of Defendants’ integration plans for their merged company.”

The states noted that Paramount’s document productions “largely cut off” before the merger agreement was signed in February, leaving the plaintiffs with few internal documents about post-closing plans.

The state AGs wrote, “Defendants’ pre-complaint productions also do nothing to address the need for discovery from third party customers and competitors. Importantly, no depositions of percipient fact witnesses from Defendants or third parties have occurred.”

The states also contended that their schedule was “reasonable,” claiming that the 402 days from the signing of the merger agreement on February 27 to the proposed trial date “moves this case to trial more rapidly than virtually every merger case in recent history.” The AT&T-Time Warner trial started 513 days after the merger deal was signed, they noted, as opposed to when the DOJ lawsuit was filed. The state AGs also wrote that an April trial would still leave the judge with time to decide the case by June.

The state AGs also called Paramount’s proposed schedule “one-sided,” arguing, “Their extraordinarily truncated schedule unfairly favors Defendants because they (1) have information Plaintiff States need to prove their case and (2) do not bear the burden of persuasion.”

Paramount wants a trial to start in November in the antitrust lawsuit brought by a dozen state attorneys general and the Writers Guild America. Not surprisingly, the state AGs and the guild want an April start to the proceedings.

The sides outlined their proposals ina joint filing Friday, with the ultimate decision on scheduling left to the federal judge in the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

“The parties have discussed the trial schedule, but they have not reached agreement,” the parties wrote.

The trial dates are hugely important for the transaction, and even Paramount’s proposed date likely will cost the company hundreds of millions. After September 30, Paramount will be on the hook for about $7 million for every day that the transaction doesn’t close, under an agreement with WBD that was a sweetener to the deal.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ request to delay proceedings until April is nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that goes well beyond the timelines sought in similar prior proceedings and ignores the substantial evidence plaintiffs have already received in this matter. Delay will also harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 states in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives. This challenge deserves careful and thorough review and today my office and attorneys general across the country asked the court for a trial date next spring. We are eager to continue to make our case and look forward to a final determination of the schedule by the court.”

Last week, Paramount said it would not close the merger until June 1, 2027, or until days after the legal issues are resolved, and indicated it wanted to go directly to trial. Its announcement came just days after the judge granted the state AGs a temporary restraining order that prohibited the transaction from closing for 14 days, an order that was later extended to 28 days.

The company spokeswoman said a trial “on the merits is the best and most direct way for us to prove what we’ve said from the start — this transaction is lawful, pro-competitive, and raises no antitrust concerns.”

In the filing Friday, Paramount proposed a 12-day trial starting November 4 that would encompass the cases brought by the states and the WGA.

Paramount also noted that the later date would give the judge “much less time to decide” the case by June, the outside date it had set for the merger to close, as well as time for the company to appeal.

Among other things, they noted that the DOJ’s antitrust case seeking to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner went to trial on March 19, 2018, four months after the federal government brought the case. Makan Delrahim, who is Paramount’s chief legal officer, was then the chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division; on the other side was attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Time Warner, and now representing WBD in this case.

The company also noted that Bonta had last week favored a January trial start, but now was proposing a date four months later.

“Given the stakes of this case, there is no basis and no time to delay for the sake of delay, particularly when delay significantly prejudices Defendants and the Hollywood ecosystem more broadly,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing.

The company also argued that Paramount and the WGA will have had sufficient time for discovery.

Paramount’s legal team wrote, “State Plaintiffs had six-plus months before they filed their complaint to conduct unilateral discovery regarding the proposed transaction. State Plaintiffs also had the benefit of waivers granted by Defendants to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to share with State Plaintiffs all information and materials that Defendants produced to the DOJ. In sum, the discovery that State Plaintiffs received many months ago includes over two million documents from more than 80 of Defendants’ employees.”

The company’s legal team noted that the later date would require them to refile merger materials with the Justice Department, which has already cleared the transaction, and that it would leave the creative community in a period of uncertainty, as Paramount plans to boost production to 30 films per year.

The state AGs and WGA proposed a start of April 5, 2027, lasting at least 12-15 days, with each plaintiff presenting their cases sequentially.

The state plaintiffs wrote that extensive discovery is needed, including of “the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets, the nature and scope of harm in those markets, whether expansion by other firms will prevent harm in those markets, and whether the merger will produce verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to outweigh harm in those markets.”

They pointed specifically to areas like Paramount’s assertion that the merger will generate billions in synergies, “a claim that Plaintiff States are entitled to test in discovery, including discovery of Defendants’ integration plans for their merged company.”

The states noted that Paramount’s document productions “largely cut off” before the merger agreement was signed in February, leaving the plaintiffs with few internal documents about post-closing plans.

The state AGs wrote, “Defendants’ pre-complaint productions also do nothing to address the need for discovery from third party customers and competitors. Importantly, no depositions of percipient fact witnesses from Defendants or third parties have occurred.”

The states also contended that their schedule was “reasonable,” claiming that the 402 days from the signing of the merger agreement on February 27 to the proposed trial date “moves this case to trial more rapidly than virtually every merger case in recent history.” The AT&T-Time Warner trial started 513 days after the merger deal was signed, they noted, as opposed to when the DOJ lawsuit was filed. The state AGs also wrote that an April trial would still leave the judge with time to decide the case by June.

The state AGs also called Paramount’s proposed schedule “one-sided,” arguing, “Their extraordinarily truncated schedule unfairly favors Defendants because they (1) have information Plaintiff States need to prove their case and (2) do not bear the burden of persuasion.”

Paramount wants a trial to start in November in the antitrust lawsuit brought by a dozen state attorneys general and the Writers Guild America. Not surprisingly, the state AGs and the guild want an April start to the proceedings.

The sides outlined their proposals ina joint filing Friday, with the ultimate decision on scheduling left to the federal judge in the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

“The parties have discussed the trial schedule, but they have not reached agreement,” the parties wrote.

The trial dates are hugely important for the transaction, and even Paramount’s proposed date likely will cost the company hundreds of millions. After September 30, Paramount will be on the hook for about $7 million for every day that the transaction doesn’t close, under an agreement with WBD that was a sweetener to the deal.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ request to delay proceedings until April is nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that goes well beyond the timelines sought in similar prior proceedings and ignores the substantial evidence plaintiffs have already received in this matter. Delay will also harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 states in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives. This challenge deserves careful and thorough review and today my office and attorneys general across the country asked the court for a trial date next spring. We are eager to continue to make our case and look forward to a final determination of the schedule by the court.”

Last week, Paramount said it would not close the merger until June 1, 2027, or until days after the legal issues are resolved, and indicated it wanted to go directly to trial. Its announcement came just days after the judge granted the state AGs a temporary restraining order that prohibited the transaction from closing for 14 days, an order that was later extended to 28 days.

The company spokeswoman said a trial “on the merits is the best and most direct way for us to prove what we’ve said from the start — this transaction is lawful, pro-competitive, and raises no antitrust concerns.”

In the filing Friday, Paramount proposed a 12-day trial starting November 4 that would encompass the cases brought by the states and the WGA.

Paramount also noted that the later date would give the judge “much less time to decide” the case by June, the outside date it had set for the merger to close, as well as time for the company to appeal.

Among other things, they noted that the DOJ’s antitrust case seeking to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner went to trial on March 19, 2018, four months after the federal government brought the case. Makan Delrahim, who is Paramount’s chief legal officer, was then the chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division; on the other side was attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Time Warner, and now representing WBD in this case.

The company also noted that Bonta had last week favored a January trial start, but now was proposing a date four months later.

“Given the stakes of this case, there is no basis and no time to delay for the sake of delay, particularly when delay significantly prejudices Defendants and the Hollywood ecosystem more broadly,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing.

The company also argued that Paramount and the WGA will have had sufficient time for discovery.

Paramount’s legal team wrote, “State Plaintiffs had six-plus months before they filed their complaint to conduct unilateral discovery regarding the proposed transaction. State Plaintiffs also had the benefit of waivers granted by Defendants to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to share with State Plaintiffs all information and materials that Defendants produced to the DOJ. In sum, the discovery that State Plaintiffs received many months ago includes over two million documents from more than 80 of Defendants’ employees.”

The company’s legal team noted that the later date would require them to refile merger materials with the Justice Department, which has already cleared the transaction, and that it would leave the creative community in a period of uncertainty, as Paramount plans to boost production to 30 films per year.

The state AGs and WGA proposed a start of April 5, 2027, lasting at least 12-15 days, with each plaintiff presenting their cases sequentially.

The state plaintiffs wrote that extensive discovery is needed, including of “the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets, the nature and scope of harm in those markets, whether expansion by other firms will prevent harm in those markets, and whether the merger will produce verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to outweigh harm in those markets.”

They pointed specifically to areas like Paramount’s assertion that the merger will generate billions in synergies, “a claim that Plaintiff States are entitled to test in discovery, including discovery of Defendants’ integration plans for their merged company.”

The states noted that Paramount’s document productions “largely cut off” before the merger agreement was signed in February, leaving the plaintiffs with few internal documents about post-closing plans.

The state AGs wrote, “Defendants’ pre-complaint productions also do nothing to address the need for discovery from third party customers and competitors. Importantly, no depositions of percipient fact witnesses from Defendants or third parties have occurred.”

The states also contended that their schedule was “reasonable,” claiming that the 402 days from the signing of the merger agreement on February 27 to the proposed trial date “moves this case to trial more rapidly than virtually every merger case in recent history.” The AT&T-Time Warner trial started 513 days after the merger deal was signed, they noted, as opposed to when the DOJ lawsuit was filed. The state AGs also wrote that an April trial would still leave the judge with time to decide the case by June.

The state AGs also called Paramount’s proposed schedule “one-sided,” arguing, “Their extraordinarily truncated schedule unfairly favors Defendants because they (1) have information Plaintiff States need to prove their case and (2) do not bear the burden of persuasion.”

Paramount wants a trial to start in November in the antitrust lawsuit brought by a dozen state attorneys general and the Writers Guild America. Not surprisingly, the state AGs and the guild want an April start to the proceedings.

The sides outlined their proposals ina joint filing Friday, with the ultimate decision on scheduling left to the federal judge in the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

“The parties have discussed the trial schedule, but they have not reached agreement,” the parties wrote.

The trial dates are hugely important for the transaction, and even Paramount’s proposed date likely will cost the company hundreds of millions. After September 30, Paramount will be on the hook for about $7 million for every day that the transaction doesn’t close, under an agreement with WBD that was a sweetener to the deal.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ request to delay proceedings until April is nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that goes well beyond the timelines sought in similar prior proceedings and ignores the substantial evidence plaintiffs have already received in this matter. Delay will also harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 states in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives. This challenge deserves careful and thorough review and today my office and attorneys general across the country asked the court for a trial date next spring. We are eager to continue to make our case and look forward to a final determination of the schedule by the court.”

Last week, Paramount said it would not close the merger until June 1, 2027, or until days after the legal issues are resolved, and indicated it wanted to go directly to trial. Its announcement came just days after the judge granted the state AGs a temporary restraining order that prohibited the transaction from closing for 14 days, an order that was later extended to 28 days.

The company spokeswoman said a trial “on the merits is the best and most direct way for us to prove what we’ve said from the start — this transaction is lawful, pro-competitive, and raises no antitrust concerns.”

In the filing Friday, Paramount proposed a 12-day trial starting November 4 that would encompass the cases brought by the states and the WGA.

Paramount also noted that the later date would give the judge “much less time to decide” the case by June, the outside date it had set for the merger to close, as well as time for the company to appeal.

Among other things, they noted that the DOJ’s antitrust case seeking to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner went to trial on March 19, 2018, four months after the federal government brought the case. Makan Delrahim, who is Paramount’s chief legal officer, was then the chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division; on the other side was attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Time Warner, and now representing WBD in this case.

The company also noted that Bonta had last week favored a January trial start, but now was proposing a date four months later.

“Given the stakes of this case, there is no basis and no time to delay for the sake of delay, particularly when delay significantly prejudices Defendants and the Hollywood ecosystem more broadly,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing.

The company also argued that Paramount and the WGA will have had sufficient time for discovery.

Paramount’s legal team wrote, “State Plaintiffs had six-plus months before they filed their complaint to conduct unilateral discovery regarding the proposed transaction. State Plaintiffs also had the benefit of waivers granted by Defendants to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to share with State Plaintiffs all information and materials that Defendants produced to the DOJ. In sum, the discovery that State Plaintiffs received many months ago includes over two million documents from more than 80 of Defendants’ employees.”

The company’s legal team noted that the later date would require them to refile merger materials with the Justice Department, which has already cleared the transaction, and that it would leave the creative community in a period of uncertainty, as Paramount plans to boost production to 30 films per year.

The state AGs and WGA proposed a start of April 5, 2027, lasting at least 12-15 days, with each plaintiff presenting their cases sequentially.

The state plaintiffs wrote that extensive discovery is needed, including of “the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets, the nature and scope of harm in those markets, whether expansion by other firms will prevent harm in those markets, and whether the merger will produce verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to outweigh harm in those markets.”

They pointed specifically to areas like Paramount’s assertion that the merger will generate billions in synergies, “a claim that Plaintiff States are entitled to test in discovery, including discovery of Defendants’ integration plans for their merged company.”

The states noted that Paramount’s document productions “largely cut off” before the merger agreement was signed in February, leaving the plaintiffs with few internal documents about post-closing plans.

The state AGs wrote, “Defendants’ pre-complaint productions also do nothing to address the need for discovery from third party customers and competitors. Importantly, no depositions of percipient fact witnesses from Defendants or third parties have occurred.”

The states also contended that their schedule was “reasonable,” claiming that the 402 days from the signing of the merger agreement on February 27 to the proposed trial date “moves this case to trial more rapidly than virtually every merger case in recent history.” The AT&T-Time Warner trial started 513 days after the merger deal was signed, they noted, as opposed to when the DOJ lawsuit was filed. The state AGs also wrote that an April trial would still leave the judge with time to decide the case by June.

The state AGs also called Paramount’s proposed schedule “one-sided,” arguing, “Their extraordinarily truncated schedule unfairly favors Defendants because they (1) have information Plaintiff States need to prove their case and (2) do not bear the burden of persuasion.”

A German court ruled against Suno over its use of copyrighted works in its generative AI music service.

U.S.-based Suno said that it is evaluating its options in the wake of the ruling, including an appeal.

A regional court in Munich ruled Friday that Suno violated copyrights when it used music covered by the licensing agency GEMA, per Reuters.

The case reflected the ongoing debate over the use of copyrighted works in training models, with a number of lawsuits in the United States focused on inputs and outputs. The specifics of the German ruling were not clear, but Suno does not expect the decision to impact cases in the U.S.

GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüller, said in a statement, “The court made it clear today: AI models based on the theft of intellectual property do not enjoy legal protection. AI providers must acquire licenses and cannot simply help themselves to our members’ works for free. In doing so, the court has significantly strengthened Europe as a hub for culture. If systems are operated in Europe, legal action can be taken before European courts. This is crucial for legal enforcement.”

Kai Welp, GEMA’s general counsel, said that the ruling was “very gratifying to see the assessment of the legal situation in the USA and the fact that we can sue in Munich regardless of where the training takes place.”

A spokesperson for Suno said: “From the beginning, we trained our models to create new songs, not reproduce existing ones, and built protections into our platform. We disagree with today’s ruling – which rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of how Suno’s technology works, how it is used and how U.S. law applies — and are evaluating all available options, including an appeal.”

One of the highest-profile cases in the U.S. is a lawsuit brought by three studios — Warner Bros., NBC Universal and Disney — challenging Midjourney’s unauthorized use of copyrighted works, including IP from Star Wars and Superman. The AI company has said that it is a fair use of the material under the Copyright Act.

Wolfram Weimer, Germany‘s minister of state for culture and media, said in a statement that the ruling was an “important signal for strengthening the rights of creatives in the digital music market.”

In November, the German court ruling in favor of GEMA over its challenge to OpenAI’s use of song lyrics.

Paramount wants a trial to start in November in the antitrust lawsuit brought by a dozen state attorneys general and the Writers Guild America. Not surprisingly, the state AGs and the guild want an April start to the proceedings.

The sides outlined their proposals ina joint filing Friday, with the ultimate decision on scheduling left to the federal judge in the case, Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

“The parties have discussed the trial schedule, but they have not reached agreement,” the parties wrote.

The trial dates are hugely important for the transaction, and even Paramount’s proposed date likely will cost the company hundreds of millions. After September 30, Paramount will be on the hook for about $7 million for every day that the transaction doesn’t close, under an agreement with WBD that was a sweetener to the deal.

A Paramount spokesperson said, “Our request for a November trial date is more than sufficient to give both sides the time they need to conduct discovery, gather evidence, and prepare for trial. Plaintiffs’ request to delay proceedings until April is nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that goes well beyond the timelines sought in similar prior proceedings and ignores the substantial evidence plaintiffs have already received in this matter. Delay will also harm the many individuals outside this courtroom who will be denied the expanded content offerings and industry stability that a combined Paramount-WBD promises to bring.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading 12 states in the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Our challenge to the unlawful Warner Bros./Paramount merger is a clean-cut antitrust challenge through and through: it’s about protecting the vibrancy of an industry, the pockets of consumers, and the quality of films and television programs that take center stage in many of our lives. This challenge deserves careful and thorough review and today my office and attorneys general across the country asked the court for a trial date next spring. We are eager to continue to make our case and look forward to a final determination of the schedule by the court.”

Last week, Paramount said it would not close the merger until June 1, 2027, or until days after the legal issues are resolved, and indicated it wanted to go directly to trial. Its announcement came just days after the judge granted the state AGs a temporary restraining order that prohibited the transaction from closing for 14 days, an order that was later extended to 28 days.

The company spokeswoman said a trial “on the merits is the best and most direct way for us to prove what we’ve said from the start — this transaction is lawful, pro-competitive, and raises no antitrust concerns.”

In the filing Friday, Paramount proposed a 12-day trial starting November 4 that would encompass the cases brought by the states and the WGA.

Paramount also noted that the later date would give the judge “much less time to decide” the case by June, the outside date it had set for the merger to close, as well as time for the company to appeal.

Among other things, they noted that the DOJ’s antitrust case seeking to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner went to trial on March 19, 2018, four months after the federal government brought the case. Makan Delrahim, who is Paramount’s chief legal officer, was then the chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division; on the other side was attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Time Warner, and now representing WBD in this case.

The company also noted that Bonta had last week favored a January trial start, but now was proposing a date four months later.

“Given the stakes of this case, there is no basis and no time to delay for the sake of delay, particularly when delay significantly prejudices Defendants and the Hollywood ecosystem more broadly,” Paramount’s legal team wrote in the filing.

The company also argued that Paramount and the WGA will have had sufficient time for discovery.

Paramount’s legal team wrote, “State Plaintiffs had six-plus months before they filed their complaint to conduct unilateral discovery regarding the proposed transaction. State Plaintiffs also had the benefit of waivers granted by Defendants to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to share with State Plaintiffs all information and materials that Defendants produced to the DOJ. In sum, the discovery that State Plaintiffs received many months ago includes over two million documents from more than 80 of Defendants’ employees.”

The company’s legal team noted that the later date would require them to refile merger materials with the Justice Department, which has already cleared the transaction, and that it would leave the creative community in a period of uncertainty, as Paramount plans to boost production to 30 films per year.

The state AGs and WGA proposed a start of April 5, 2027, lasting at least 12-15 days, with each plaintiff presenting their cases sequentially.

The state plaintiffs wrote that extensive discovery is needed, including of “the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets, the nature and scope of harm in those markets, whether expansion by other firms will prevent harm in those markets, and whether the merger will produce verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to outweigh harm in those markets.”

They pointed specifically to areas like Paramount’s assertion that the merger will generate billions in synergies, “a claim that Plaintiff States are entitled to test in discovery, including discovery of Defendants’ integration plans for their merged company.”

The states noted that Paramount’s document productions “largely cut off” before the merger agreement was signed in February, leaving the plaintiffs with few internal documents about post-closing plans.

The state AGs wrote, “Defendants’ pre-complaint productions also do nothing to address the need for discovery from third party customers and competitors. Importantly, no depositions of percipient fact witnesses from Defendants or third parties have occurred.”

The states also contended that their schedule was “reasonable,” claiming that the 402 days from the signing of the merger agreement on February 27 to the proposed trial date “moves this case to trial more rapidly than virtually every merger case in recent history.” The AT&T-Time Warner trial started 513 days after the merger deal was signed, they noted, as opposed to when the DOJ lawsuit was filed. The state AGs also wrote that an April trial would still leave the judge with time to decide the case by June.

The state AGs also called Paramount’s proposed schedule “one-sided,” arguing, “Their extraordinarily truncated schedule unfairly favors Defendants because they (1) have information Plaintiff States need to prove their case and (2) do not bear the burden of persuasion.”

UPDATED, with FCC comment: ABC said that the FCC’s demand for an early review of its broadcast station licenses was part of an “ongoing retaliation campaign” to punish the network over its news coverage and create a chilling effect on free speech.

In a filing made public on Thursday, the network’s legal team also warned that the FCC’s action — demanding an early review of the licenses for the network’s eight owned stations — reflected a wider effort to crack down on the media. The network’s filing identified multiple instances in which Trump has called for the network to lose its license.

“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the network’s legal team wrote.  “Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on disfavored speakers. The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely.”

ABC’s filing cited instances of threats that Trump has made against the network over its news coverage and its handling of the 2024 presidential debate, and referred to other instances in which the administration has gone after other outlets and political opponents.

In April, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, called for the network to apply for an early renewal of the station licenses, citing an investigation of the network’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Such an action is highly unusual, and the first of ABC station licenses were not set to expire until 2028.

Carr then opened up a public comment proceeding, with conservative groups like the Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights calling for the network’s licenses to be pulled. The deadline for responses, including from ABC, was on Wednesday.

The FCC chairman has not said when the agency will make a decision. But in a sign that the network has been preparing for a legal battle, it has recently retained Beth Wilkinson, who is part of the Paramount and Nexstar legal teams as they defend proposed mergers amid antitrust lawsuits brought by state attorneys general. Disney’s legal team is led by Horacio Gutierrez, chief legal and global affairs officer, and includes Paul Clement, the former solicitor general and Supreme Court lawyer, and Jennifer Tatel.

The network said that its stations “easily meet the standard for license renewal,” which is a showing that they operate in the public interest. The network has cited support from a range of community groups, press freedom organizations and former FCC chairs and top ranking officials, as well as conservative and free market groups like Americans for Tax Reform.

The network launched an ad campaign, urging viewers to weigh in with the FCC, warning that the agency is “questioning our commitment to the community.” More than 153,000 comments were submitted in the proceeding. ABC said that, based on an AI analysis of comments almost 86% of the tens of thousands of comments submitted to the FCC support renewal of the licenses, and another 10% objected to the FCC.

In its filing, the network’s legal team wrote that the FCC has “resorted to intimidation,” citing Carr’s previous warnings over a joke that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel told about the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination. On Benny Johnson’s podcast, Carr chided Kimmel for the remark, and said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

The ABC legal team wrote, “The FCC has spent the last 18 months searching for some pretext for revoking the Stations’ licenses. The Commission has found none, because the Stations easily meet the standard for license renewal—which under the law means that the Commission cannot revoke their licenses or order a hearing on their renewal applications.”

ABC said that the DEI investigation has found no violation, while even “if any violation were ever substantiated, the Commission has a graduated set of well-established remedies far short of the corporate death penalty of license non-renewal.” The network’s legal team warned that any FCC sanction over DEI would raise due process concerns, as the policies being challenged were encouraged by the FCC two years ago, when Joe Biden was president and Democrats held a majority on the commission.

Carr also has been investigating The View and whether it qualifies as a bona fide news program. That would make it exempt from the FCC’s Equal Time rule, which requires stations that feature political candidates to provide comparable time to rivals, if requested. The network also has pushed back on that proceeding, arguing that it received exemption guidance in 2002, and that the FCC was selectively enforcing the rule.

Among the groups also weighing in recently was the National Association of Broadcasters, which warned that the early renewals “will inevitably discourage investment in the broadcast industry.” They, too, contended that editorial decisions were constitutionally protected and outside the bounds of the agency’s authority.

A spokesperson for the FCC said, “For decades, Americans of all stripes have been subsidizing broadcast media to the tune of many billions of dollars by giving TV stations free use of a valuable, public resource—the airwaves.  In exchange, broadcasters are required by law to operate in the public interest—not in the narrow or partisan interests of a political party.”

The spokesperson added, “Broadcasters know that they are prohibited from engaging in invidious forms of DEI discrimination, that they must comply with political equal opportunity regulations, and that they are barred from running broadcast hoaxes or distorting the news.  The FCC is going to hold broadcasters accountable to the full extent of the law, regardless of any disinformation campaign that some of them may choose to run.”

Technically, the FCC licenses stations, not networks. During his tenure at the FCC, Carr has said that he wants to boost local stations in their leverage vis a vis the major networks, while defending his investigations into programming as within the bounds of the agency’s authority. He has cited the requirement that stations serve the public interest, a rather broad term that has invited complaints over the network’s news and other coverage.

In its petition to deny ABC station licenses, the Center for American Rights argued that the network show “a consistent and overt partisan bias to its programming over multiple shows.” Other arguments raised included that its stations run a “race and culture effort that intentionally brings an ideological agenda to local newsrooms and documentary shows.”

Among other things, they cited Kimmel’s political donations and partisan activity and claimed that he uses his show as a “propaganda platform to advance his personal political views.” They pointed to the partisan bent of his jokes and guests, as well as “his infamous 2024 pre-election plea to vote for Kamala Harris delivered nationwide over the airwaves, which would have cost millions of dollars if it had been classified as an advertisement rather than a show monologue.”

In the network’s filing, ABC’s legal team wrote that the agency has “repeatedly emphasized” that it has limited authority to act on content complaints. They noted that the agency long ago abandoned the Fairness Doctrine, which required stations to present varying points of view on issues of public importance. The FCC’s news distortion and broadcast hoax policies, ABC’s legal team said, are very narrow in scope.

While the petitioners calling for license revocations do not invoke the news distortion policy, the network’s legal team noted, “they nevertheless complain that ABC ‘routinely broadcasts misinformation, disinformation, and other fake news’ and that various ABC network programs aired too many ‘anti-Trump team reports,’ too much ‘positive’ coverage of Kamala Harris, and did not devote enough time ‘letting viewers know just how much Trump had reduced border crossings compared to his predecessor.’  But these are complaints about editorial balance—decisions about which stories to cover, which candidate to feature, and how much emphasis to give different topics—or editorial commentary.”

They added, “Denying the Stations’ renewals just because they aired ABC network programming that the Commission later deemed ‘DEI TV’ or too ‘anti-Trump’ would stretch the rule far beyond the First Amendment’s bounds.”

Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, said in a statement that a “small number of partisan voices tried to hijack this process into a referendum on a network they dislike, but the public refuses to let local stations become collateral damage in the FCC’s political games. The FCC has no authority to police the ideological balance of the airwaves, and no matter what this Commission does next, the record now makes clear that this was never a genuine search for the public interest.”