Chris Wallace: States Are Playing Politics With the Law to Block Paramount’s Warner Bros. Deal
Fox News veteran Chris Wallace has written an opinion piece arguing that a lawsuit filed by twelve US state attorneys general to block Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is being used as a political tool rather than a genuine antitrust measure. Wallace, who is a paid senior adviser to RedBird Capital (a major stakeholder in Paramount and the deal), contends the case improperly invokes concerns about news media diversity to challenge a merger that would combine CBS News and CNN, even though the lawsuit itself contains no formal antitrust claims relating to news operations.
The suit relies on California's Cartwright Act, the state's antitrust law, and formally alleges harm only in three markets: wide-release theatrical films, top-grossing films and cable affiliate fees, with no mention of news competition. Wallace highlights comments from California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James suggesting the case is also motivated by fears over reduced viewpoint diversity in news, a rationale he dismisses as outdated given CNN and the CBS Evening News together reach only about 4.6 million viewers, roughly 1.7% of US adults, in a fragmented modern media landscape spanning streaming, podcasts and social platforms.
In short
- Chris Wallace criticises state lawsuit targeting Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger
- Twelve attorneys general cite antitrust law but reference news diversity concerns
- Wallace says CBS/CNN combined audience share is too small to justify blocking deal
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The strongest case for Wallace's position is that this lawsuit conflates antitrust enforcement with industrial policy. The formal complaint alleges harm only in theatrical films, cable fees and top-grossing films—legitimate antitrust concerns—yet states invoke news diversity without grounding this in the legal pleadings, suggesting political motivation rather than principled enforcement. In a fragmented media landscape where CNN and CBS Evening News reach merely 4.6 million viewers, claims that the merger endangers viewpoint diversity strain credibility, and allowing states to block mergers based on subjective news concerns substitutes political judgment for antitrust law.
The case against
The states' position rests on reasonable grounds that news media's influence on political discourse exceeds raw viewership, and antitrust law properly addresses structural concentration effects beyond immediate market share. The formal allegations about theatrical films and cable fees are legitimate, and states may reasonably address broader media consolidation as part of comprehensive enforcement; moreover, Wallace's financial stake through RedBird Capital compromises his analytical independence. Large mergers deserve scrutiny because they set precedent, and modern fragmentation alone should not eliminate concerns about ownership concentration in influential industries.
Explained simply
Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are major US media companies. Paramount owns CBS, including CBS News; Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, along with film studios and cable channels. A proposed takeover would bring the two news organisations under the same ownership.
In the United States, state attorneys general can bring cases under state competition laws, which are intended to prevent deals that could harm consumers or restrict competition. California’s Cartwright Act is the law cited in this case. The lawsuit identifies concerns in film distribution and cable fees, while public comments by some attorneys general have also raised questions about news viewpoints.
Chris Wallace, a former Fox News presenter, has criticised the case in an opinion article. He is also a paid senior adviser to RedBird Capital, a major investor in Paramount and the deal. The dispute matters because it raises questions about how competition laws apply to media mergers and who should decide whether changes in media ownership could reduce the range of news voices.