A US judge is reviewing a controversial settlement that would allow Paramount's $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to proceed, despite an earlier court ruling that the deal would likely reduce competition and violate antitrust law. Twelve states led by California sued to block the merger in July, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement with Paramount earlier this week, which other states have now signed onto. Media and free speech advocacy groups have filed briefs urging the judge to reject the settlement, arguing it provides "virtually nothing" for the public and fails to address the core competitive concerns raised in the original lawsuit.

The settlement relies entirely on behavioural remedies rather than structural changes, including Paramount's pledge to release 30 films per year, but contains no requirement for divestiture. Critics argue these conduct commitments are typically not enforceable and leave the loss of independent decision-making between the two companies largely intact. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín has signalled she is not a "rubber stamp" for the agreement and is examining whether the settlement was the result of collusion rather than arm's length negotiation, whilst Senator Cory Booker has questioned whether the proposed remedies adequately address the harms alleged in the original complaint.