DGA and IATSE Push Rob Bonta to Allow Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger With Conditions
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
The Directors Guild of America and IATSE have urged California Attorney General Rob Bonta to settle the states’ antitrust case against Paramount’s proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, subject to safeguards. They argue that the legal uncertainty is worsening an already difficult employment situation for film and television workers, with some productions reportedly delayed or cancelled.
Bonta led 12 states in suing to block the deal in July, alleging excessive consolidation in basic cable and theatrical distribution; a judge has paused the transaction and set trial for 2 March. The unions propose preserving the two studios as separate operations producing at least 15 films each annually, alongside continued licensing from independent producers, while the WGA and Cinema United oppose the merger and AMC and Regal support it.
- DGA and IATSE want a conditional Paramount-Warner Bros. settlement.
- They say merger uncertainty is harming industry employment.
- A 12-state lawsuit is due for trial on 2 March.
New here? Start with this
The proposed deal would combine Paramount, a long-established Hollywood studio and broadcaster, with Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns Warner Bros. film and television businesses as well as networks and streaming services. State attorneys general, led by California’s Rob Bonta, argue that bringing the companies together could give one firm too much control over the making, distribution and sale of films and television programmes.
The Directors Guild of America represents directors, while IATSE represents many behind-the-scenes film and television workers, including crew and technicians. They want the legal case settled with conditions intended to protect production levels and opportunities for independent producers, saying prolonged uncertainty is affecting work.
Other groups have different views because the outcome could shape competition across cinema, television and streaming. The Writers Guild of America and Cinema United oppose the merger, while cinema chains AMC and Regal support it, reflecting their differing interests in how films are made, supplied and shown.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that a conditional settlement could give the industry needed certainty while protecting jobs during a difficult production downturn. They contend that enforceable commitments to keep the studios operationally separate, maintain substantial film output and continue buying from independent producers could preserve creative employment and competition better than prolonged litigation. Their underlying view is that a carefully regulated deal may offer stability without abandoning public-interest safeguards.
The case against
Opponents argue that the merger would still concentrate too much power over theatrical distribution and basic cable, weakening competition even if temporary conditions are attached. They contend that promises on film output or separate operations can be hard to monitor and may not prevent future job cuts, reduced choice for independent producers or less bargaining power for creative workers. Their underlying view is that preserving genuinely independent studios is a more durable protection for audiences, workers and the wider production ecosystem.
More coverage
- The Hollywood Reporter — California Pressured By Two Hollywood Unions to Settle Paramount-Warner Bros. Lawsuit
- Deadline — DGA & IATSE Urge Fast Track On Paramount-WBD Merger Standoff For Fears That Prolonged Court Battle Will Hurt Jobs
- Consequence — Paramount Open to Selling CNN to End Lawsuit Holding Up Warner Bros. Takeover