Ellison secures backing of both AMC and Regal for Warner Bros deal
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
Regal Cinemas has become the second-largest US cinema chain to back Paramount Skydance's proposed $111 billion (roughly £87 billion) takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, with chief executive Eduardo Acuna publicly urging the deal to proceed. His statement follows AMC Theatres' endorsement a week earlier, meaning Ellison now has America's two biggest exhibitors on side just as a multi-state antitrust trial looms, significantly undermining the states' case that the merger would harm cinema owners and audiences.
Acuna said he had secured commitments from Paramount Skydance chief executive David Ellison, including at least 30 theatrical releases a year, a protected cinema window of 45 days before premium video-on-demand and 90 days before streaming for a minimum of three years, and $30 billion in annual content investment. He warned that a prolonged legal battle would create damaging uncertainty rather than benefit the industry. California attorney-general Rob Bonta and 11 other state attorneys-general filed suit on 13 July, alleging the merger breaches the Clayton Act by curbing competition in theatrical distribution and cable licensing; a judge has since set the trial for 2–19 March 2027. The endorsements put Acuna and AMC's Adam Aron at odds with exhibition trade body Cinema United, whose head Michael O'Leary has warned the deal would mean fewer films, higher costs and fewer cinemas.
- Regal Cinemas CEO backs Paramount-Warner Bros Discovery merger
- Joins AMC in supporting deal ahead of 2027 antitrust trial
- Ellison pledged 30 films yearly and protected cinema release windows
New here? Start with this
Regal and AMC are America's two biggest cinema chains, and their approval carries weight because theatre owners are among the groups most directly affected by any tie-up between major studios. Paramount Skydance, led by CEO David Ellison, has proposed buying Warner Bros. Discovery for $111 billion, a deal that would combine two of Hollywood's largest film and TV libraries and studios under one roof.
The merger is being challenged in court. California's attorney general, joined by eleven other states, filed a lawsuit in July arguing the deal would reduce competition in how films are distributed to cinemas and how cable channels are licensed, potentially harming both theatre owners and audiences. A trial has been scheduled for March 2027, and in the meantime Paramount must pay Warner Bros. Discovery a daily fee if the deal is delayed past 1 October.
Cinema chain support matters because the states' case partly rests on the idea that the merger would hurt theatre owners, so public backing from the industry's largest players undercuts that argument. Ellison has offered guarantees on future film releases and how long movies stay exclusively in cinemas before appearing on streaming, commitments aimed at reassuring exhibitors and easing opposition to the deal.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the merger argue that scale is now essential for competing with streaming giants and shifting audience habits, and that Ellison's binding commitments – a 45/90-day theatrical window, a minimum of 30 wide releases annually, and $30 billion in yearly content investment – directly protect exhibitors and moviegoers rather than harming them. They contend that a drawn-out antitrust trial stretching to 2027 imposes real costs, including the $7 million daily ticking fee, and that this uncertainty itself damages an industry still recovering from the pandemic and strikes, making a negotiated, commitment-based resolution preferable to prolonged litigation. Backing from the two largest cinema chains, they say, reflects genuine confidence that consolidation under clear guarantees serves theatres' commercial interests better than an unresolved legal fight would.
The case against
Sceptics of the merger argue that combining two major studios inherently reduces the number of independent buyers and sellers in theatrical distribution and cable licensing, which over time tends to weaken competitive pressure regardless of any short-term voluntary commitments. They point out that promises tied to a three-year window are not permanent structural safeguards, and that once litigation risk has passed, a merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery could alter release strategies, pricing, or content investment with far less accountability to exhibitors or the public. From this view, the states' lawsuit reflects a legitimate and considered application of antitrust law, and the discomfort of a lengthy trial process is a reasonable price for ensuring that competition concerns are tested rigorously rather than settled through corporate reassurances alone.
More coverage
- Deadline — Regal Cinemas CEO Eduardo Acuna Champions Paramount-WBD Merger, Says Antitrust Trial “Creates More Uncertainty And Distraction”
- Deadline — Judge Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit Challenging Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger
Business Companies Entertainment Film
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Variety as “Regal Cinemas CEO Eduardo Acuna Backs Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger, Says Antitrust Trial ‘Creates More Uncertainty and Distraction’”.