Lawyers for Paramount and a coalition of state attorneys general clashed at a Friday court hearing over the pace and merits of an antitrust challenge to Paramount's merger with Warner Bros Discovery, with arguments hinging partly on whether the low-budget hit "Obsession" counts as a "blockbuster." Paramount's counsel asked the judge to forgo a temporary restraining order and instead rule on a preliminary injunction by early September, arguing this would spare the company a costly "ticking fee" owed to WBD shareholders from 1 October if the deal isn't closed by then; the AGs' lawyer called that proposal unfair and designed purely to protect a payment Paramount agreed to.

Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California, presiding in Oakland, said she would issue a written ruling before 22 July — the date EU regulators are expected to approve the deal and the earliest point the merger could close. The AGs, led by California's Rob Bonta, argue that only the five major studios can consistently produce, market and distribute true blockbusters, and that shrinking that number to four would harm cinema owners and push up ticket prices; Paramount countered by citing "Obsession," a $750,000 YouTube-creator film that has grossed nearly $430 million worldwide, plus competition from Amazon's F1, A24, Neon and streamers, as evidence the industry has moved beyond the traditional studio hierarchy.