Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Businesses

Paramount Considers Leaving California Amid Antitrust Suit (variety.com) 110

Posted by BeauHD from the hollywood-or-bust dept.
Paramount CEO David Ellison is threatening to begin moving the studio out of California on October 1 if state Attorney General Rob Bonta refuses to enter settlement talks over the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger. The company would reportedly move its Los Angeles headquarters first and shift most studio jobs out of the state over five years, with Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee under consideration. Variety reports: Ellison's threat to relocate Paramount in retaliation for California's Bonta leading the charge to kill the WBD deal -- a move that would include much of its studio operations, over time -- was first reported by industry newsletter Puck. In response, Bonta called Ellison's planned exit from the state an "attempt to blackmail the state into letting an illegal deal through."

"Paramount has lost the plot as it continues to lose in court," the attorney general wrote in a post on X. "It didn't work the first time -- on the eve of our July lawsuit -- and it won't work this time." Bonta has not publicly said what concessions from Paramount-WBD he would consider acceptable enough to take the lawsuit off the table. But the Democratic attorney general has said any remedies would need to be "structural" (i.e., divestments) rather than "behavioral" (e.g., imposing certain production quotas).

Oct. 1 is when Paramount will begin accruing a "ticking fee" payable to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders of $7 million per day. The trial in the state AGs' lawsuit is scheduled to start March 2, 2027, roughly five months after that, so Paramount would be on the hook to pay around $1.2 billion to WBD shareholders by the time the trial is scheduled to conclude. (Paramount's ticking-fee payments to WBD are not due until the deal closes.) At the Aug. 5 meeting on Paramount's lot, Ellison told his 12-member senior executive team he expects Paramount to prevail in the antitrust case against the states. However, he also said that if Bonta balks at talks, Paramount will start packing up and moving out of the Golden State in less than two months.

Paramount Considers Leaving California Amid Antitrust Suit More | Reply

Paramount Considers Leaving California Amid Antitrust Suit

Comments Filter:

  • If they think they can blackmail the government... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @02:07PM (#66284070)
    ...then they are far too big, and definitely should be broken up by antitrust regulations! Larry just made the regulators case for them!

  • Don't let the door hit you on the way out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hwstar ( 35834 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @02:08PM (#66284072)

    If they're willing to issue threats like this, what will they try next if California capitulates?

    This is one of those scenarios where if you give a planck length, they'll take the entire observable universe.

    Next it will be: If you don't repeal the California non-compete law 16600, we will pull out of California.

    Callifornia's response should be: We don't deal with businesses which operate in this manner: GTFO before we tax you even more.

  • More evidence we made the right decision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @02:17PM (#66284102) Homepage

    My spouse and I greatly enjoyed Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and consider it to be one of the best Star Trek shows ever done. But we didn't renew our Paramount subscription to watch it. This was due to Paramount and Ellison turning CBS news into Trump's mouthpiece, and doing things like spike Sixty Minutes episodes which were critical of Trump's deportations and only aired after it had essentially been accidentally leaked online, months after it was supposed to run https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/cbs-airs-60-minutes-report-on-trump-deportations-that-was-suddenly-pulled-a-month-ago [pbs.org]. The real final straw for us was when Paramount became the only channel to watch Trump's MMA event in front of the White House.

    As I discussed with my spouse, I could imagine a Star Trek episode involving a world where there was a terrible media corporation and people kept supporting it despite the evil it did because it had their regular entertainment. And then, I could see what Captain Pike would have said to those people in some speech asking if that's really worth it? So, what would Captain Pike have me do? I guess in the actual ethos of Star Trek, a show which cares about progress, and diversity, and accepting people of all sorts, and standing for democracy and freedom against oppressors wherever they are, we will not give money to Paramount under its current leadership. And given Ellison's new threats, it seems like that decision was even more justified.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      That's it then. AG Bonta read your post and promptly caved.

    • I plan to cancel HBO Max if this deal goes through. Will be happy to see this dipshit lose all his daddy's money.

    • I agree about Strange New Worlds being great. I can't agree with your decision to insert and prioritize partisan politics in a place it doesn't belong. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face, and that really doesn't make sense to me. They don't care if you stopped watching because you don't like the idea of a NYC liberal Democrat being in charge of CBS news. You stop yourself from enjoying something good, in exchange for...?
      • It isn't our decision to insert partisan politics in. Ellison's decisions with CBS, which is part of the same corporation did that. If he happened to give money to a candidate I disagreed with it might be different.

      • Re:More evidence we made the right decision (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @05:30PM (#66284510) Homepage

        This is why when people say the market decides they are wrong. If you can't sway a companies positions or politics by refusing to shop there then there is no way the market decides anything. The rich decide.

        Why would you want to give your money to someone who idealotically is acting against your beliefs?

        If I thought the money I was giving to netflix was being used to fight an strongly held core belief I would stop. No different then all those beer drinkers giving up that piss beer because a trans person got a 6 pack.

      • Voting with dollars seemed to work pretty well with Xbox PC Game Pass. I cancelled when that dipshit Spencer raised the price to $30/mo. When the price lowered back down after the financial backlash I resubscribed.

    • Galloway seems to have lost interest, but his campaign to unsubscribe from the worst corporate actors is a good idea; https://www.resistandunsubscri... [resistandunsubscribe.com] Ive dropped Paramount, Apple Music, Apple TV, and Comcast internet.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rujiel ( 1632063 )
      The MAGA alignment is indicental to Ellison's intentions with his media empire. He has made very clear that boosting Israel is a priority, and Oracle by design has a similar disposition. The democrats originally served the purpose of containing anti-Israel public sentiment, but they have largely lost control on that, so MAGA is now the last battleground for rehabilirating Israel's image to the public.

    • Sounds like a scenario for a low budget film that sets Star Trek in a David Elisson / Trump world. Maybe even find a way to craft that into an episode featuring an authoritarian dystopian world.

      Sure it might result in some people getting fired, but there is a good chance theyâ(TM)d not be following the company out of state anyhow?

  • drop in the bucket (Score:5, Interesting)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @02:20PM (#66284112)

    The entire entertainment industry provides about 1.4% of California's tax revenues. Paramount is only a small fraction of that. Not much leverage against the 4th largest economy in the world.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Yes, but it makes Larry's sprog feel important.

  • Paramount is bluffing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @02:23PM (#66284118) Journal
    California has countless context-specific legal exemptions across a broad swath of labor and safety regulations specific to the entertainment industry. Those exemptions largely don't exist outside California.

    Could that regulatory climate be recreated elsewhere? Of course it could. Will it? Unlikely, and certainly not in the next two months. But hey, who needs child actors or a clear process for managing liability when an action hero accidentally ends up inside a real wood chipper? Not Ellison!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      More and more production has been moving out the US entirely, to countries that absolutely love all those US dollars. Been going on for decades, and will continue to accelerate.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pla ( 258480 )
        If Ellison wants to flee to a 3rd world country with zero labor protections - Good riddance.

        Let's see how much talent is willing to follow him to work for slave wages and under truly dangerous conditions.

        • They could just flee to Canada though. A lot of production is done there these days because it's cheaper.

          The question is, will Canada let them play the same accounting games they play here? Because the reason we won't miss them when they're gone is that movie studios are well known for accounting tricks that make it look like they are losing money when they aren't so they don't have to pay their full tax burden.

        • If Ellison wants to flee to a 3rd world country with zero labor protections - Good riddance.

          AKA "Texas"?

    • They exist in Georgia. Heck, they probably exist in every State where they do a lot of filming. New York, for example. Ellison knows his business better than either of us, and if he thinks Texas and Tennessee are viable, they probably have the rules he's looking for as well.

      • They exist in Georgia. Heck, they probably exist in every State where they do a lot of filming. New York, for example. Ellison knows his business better than either of us, and if he thinks Texas and Tennessee are viable, they probably have the rules he's looking for as well.

        Each state has slightly different regulations, but dangling the possibility of a large influx of jobs and revenue will create the usual feeding frenzy of the politicians who will agree to get the regulations adjusted to whatever Ellison wants.

    • California has countless context-specific legal exemptions across a broad swath of [ California's ] labor and safety regulations

      In other words they still have more labor and safety regulations in place than the average state. You know... "known to the State of California to cause cancer" stickers all over everything, etc.

  • Not sure what credentials Bonta has to determine how the media and entertainment industry is supposed to operate but he sure seems to be confident in his private opinions. Given how entrenched the labor unions are in California politics I expect he's getting info from that group. Too many of these unions think they can pin companies (and "the rich") in place while they slowly rape them because the size of California's economy is such that it's hard to not do business there.

    The era of the big Hollywood studi

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      If what you say about "raping" the big companies by unions were true, the big media companies would be getting smaller and poorer, not richer and larger. No matter how you cut it, more and more wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer people, and that is accelerating. And they get handouts from governments all the time (our tax dollars).

    • Re:Is Bonta an economist now? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @02:57PM (#66284196) Homepage Journal

      Not sure what credentials Bonta has to determine how the media and entertainment industry is supposed to operate but he sure seems to be confident in his private opinions.

      They're supposed to FOLLOW THE LAW. Bonta is qualified to speak to that. Who the fuck are you? Nobody? 10-4, good buddy.

      • Except this isn't a cut and dried case of law enforcement. This is something he is doing on his own discretion. If it was cut and dried, it wouldn't have passed federal scrutiny, and every other State would be suing as well. And given the punitive appearance of the scheduling, it bears a tint of malice. The AG could get a trial date that wouldn't cost Paramount billions.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ksw_92 ( 5249207 )

        Care to point out the part(s) of the Clayton Act that you can prove would be violated by this merger? Market-share concentration, perhaps? HHI, maybe?

        Bonta's claim is that the merger would result in market shares of about 27% cable-channel licensing and the same in wide-release film distribution, and around 30% in "anticipated blockbuster distribution". This last one is a real reach as it is very tough to predict what's going to go big at the box office in any given year. See https://oag.ca.gov/system/file. [ca.gov]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He doesn't need to be. Not his fault someone is making bad investments.

    • It would still cost them a lot to move. Even if there aren't as many things to move, think of the cost for relocating the staff.

      You might be right about your deck chair analogy. The entire industry is in trouble, which means mergers become necessary for the players to survive at all. It would be worse for California and the industry if a major player like WB went bust. A lot of value would be lost, as would a lot of jobs. During a big industry shakeup, competitors will be lost regardless. Might as w

      • It would still cost them a lot to move. Even if there aren't as many things to move, think of the cost for relocating the staff.

        Figure $5000 to $10,000 per employee. 3,000 direct jobs. So $15M-$30M to relocate the employees.

      • The industry is in trouble because mergers reduced the jobs, and the remaining jobs didn't go to the most creative people, they went to the people who were best at cultivating influence. Which is almost never the same people that do the quality creative work. They're driven by completely different fundamental motivations.

        Further consolidation will just damage things even more, until finally there isn't anything to consolidate with to kick the can and the companies collapse, and then a new cycle can be start

  • So yeah get the fuck out. There are plenty of higher paying jobs available it'll be happy to bring themselves into California because that's where people live and that's where money gets made.

    California is a nice place to live with a really good economy. You can't just threaten to leave and have anyone give a shit.

    On the other hand if a company is leaving California it's generally because they want to either break the law and get away with it or do terrible things to their employees both of which ar

  • Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @03:14PM (#66284248)

    This is absurd on so many levels.

    To start with, it's not like the lawsuit has anything to do with what state they're based in. The California AG happens to be leading it, but it's a coalition of 12 states. It's not as if they could escape the suit by moving to another state. This is purely a pressure tactic, nothing more.

    Actually moving would be incredibly expensive. Build entirely new studios. Relocate all their employees. Lose a whole lot of employees who don't want to relocate.

    And anywhere else they moved to would be a worse place. They're located in Los Angeles because that's the heart of the film industry. That's where the workers are. That's where all the other companies that support the industry are. Trying to operate in Georgia or Tennessee would be much harder for them.

    Even if they somehow decided it made sense to move, that's not a decision you make quickly or lightly. It would take long and careful planning to choose a new location and prepare for the move. But here he is, saying they're going to start moving in less than two months, and he hasn't even decided what state to move to. Is anyone really supposed to take this seriously?

    If in spite of everything he really tries to go through with this, expect a shareholder lawsuit and calls for the board to fire him. But he'd have to be crazy to really do it.

    • Since David Ellison sincerely believes that he is the talent, I donâ(TM)t doubt that he will move the company. Reminds me of civil war general Pope: "Headquarters in the Saddle," John Pope's heading of his dispatches. His troops prompted an old army jibe that "He had his headquarters where his hindquarters ought to be."

    • This is absurd on so many levels.

      To start with, it's not like the lawsuit has anything to do with what state they're based in. The California AG happens to be leading it, but it's a coalition of 12 states. It's not as if they could escape the suit by moving to another state. This is purely a pressure tactic, nothing more.

      I believe they can. States can only sue companies that operate in their state. If Paramount moves to a state that isn't in that coalition, the other 12 will have a difficult time collecting.

      Actually moving would be incredibly expensive. Build entirely new studios. Relocate all their employees. Lose a whole lot of employees who don't want to relocate.

      And exactly who's going to employ all those who refuse to move? California unemployment isn't exactly stellar these days.

      And anywhere else they moved to would be a worse place. They're located in Los Angeles because that's the heart of the film industry. That's where the workers are. That's where all the other companies that support the industry are. Trying to operate in Georgia or Tennessee would be much harder for them.

      Your information is...dated. There are thriving film industries in Georgia, for example. It got so good California got scared of it. Granted, things have scaled back a bit in recent years, but that's tracking the overall decline of the film industry. LA is even worse.

      Even if they somehow decided it made sense to move, that's not a decision you make quickly or lightly. It would take long and careful planning to choose a new location and prepare for the move. But here he is, saying they're going to start moving in less than two months, and he hasn't even decided what state to move to. Is anyone really supposed to take this seriously?

      Please, don't take it seriously. Then, when it happens, it'll be far more shocking.

      If in spite of everything he really tries to go through with this, expect a shareholder lawsuit and calls for the board to fire him. But he'd have to be crazy to really do it.

      Shareholders have this odd habit of wanting their CEO to do things that increase the profitability of the company. Given how many businesses are fleeing the anti-business climate of California for Florida, Texas, and other business-friendly states -- and thriving in those new states -- they might just give him a raise.

    • How the Ellison Family Controls the Paramount-Warner MergerIn the context of the newly created media giant, the Ellison family—primarily led by Larry's son, David Ellison (CEO of Paramount Skydance)—exerts absolute voting authority through a multi-tiered corporate structure, rather than a standard single-class share model.

      "" The Core Voting Power (National Amusements): The foundation of this media empire relies on a traditional dual-class system originally built by the Redstone family. Through t

    • They're located in Los Angeles because that's the heart of the film industry. That's where the workers are. That's where all the other companies that support the industry are. Trying to operate in Georgia or Tennessee would be much harder for them.

      Also don't forget the film and TV industry settled there in large part because of the reliable climate - it doesn't matter as much with inside studio recording, but there's a lot of exterior filming that happens on those huge back lots for pretty much every show and movie. Compared to SoCal, Texas heat is absolutely brutal - and Geogia/Tennessee heat + humidity + thunderstorms + tornado warnings + whatever will make it miserable - not to mention the very real costs related to all those delays that will need

    • They plan to move anyway. The costs are already baked into the 5 year plan.

      New location, new employees, new direction from the silent partners. Saudi Arabia put up 24 BILLION dollars cash to fund this deal. They want a particular slant on all future films, news, broadcast and streaming. It is easier to convince new employees to go in a new direction than to convince existing employees to reverse course.

    • If in spite of everything he really tries to go through with this, expect a shareholder lawsuit and calls for the board to fire him.

      Some of the shareholders might sue if they believe the actions will result in losses, but the board is fully captured (the Ellison family owns the voting shares of the company, and therefore controls the board).

  • I'm looking forward to this.

  • or I'm taking my ball and going home!

    This is why we have bad laws and sweetheart deals on the books, politicians cave to these stunts way too often.

    I hope CA stands their ground. The jobs they're threatening to leave with will be worth a lot less anyway if CA caves and the jobs stay. That's the whole reason they're being sued.

  • Bye, Felicia (Score:3)

    by Sitnalta ( 1051230 ) on Tuesday August 11, 2026 @07:54PM (#66284746)

    These mega corps wouldn't be in California if it wasn't critically necessary. Try moving to Texas with no generational talent, no blue collar workers, no union buy-in.

    This is just whining of pathetic nepo welps.

  • Get the fuck out then. We don't need shitheels like you to try and force your issue down our throats. As a Californian, good riddence. GTFO.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your code should be more efficient!

Close