Monday brought the news that a dozen attorneys general caved to Paramount in their attempt to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. The $111 billion deal was halted while an antitrust suit was brought by a dozen states with a trial originally set for March 2027. With opposition seemingly caved and giving up, the deal felt like a sure thing and would be closed by the September 30 deadline before a “ticking fee” began on October 1 adding costs to the mega-deal.

But, there’s still resistance.

Block the Merger, a group formed in opposition, was granted their motion to file amicus briefs regarding the deal and settlement. All amicus briefs will have to be filed on the docket no later than 12:01 am PST on September 25 and the deadline will not be extended and briefs submitted after not accepted.

A settlement hearing was set to be done today, and it was expected it would have rubberstamped the deal. But, with this latest decision by the Judge, things will be delayed a bit.

Paramount attempted to stop the approval of amicus briefs, stating a delay would “inflict massive harm” on Paramount without the filing of an antitrust action. It’s a similar action that had Paramount demanding a $1.88 billion bond from the dozen states and Writers Guild of America if their antitrust suit moved forward.

Paramount had threatened to leave California over the lawsuit by the attorneys general causing them, as well as other California elected officials, to swerve in the political game of chicken. Governor Gavin Newsom, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (who is seeking reelection), California gubernatorial front-runner Xavier Becerra, and some unions urged California AG Bonta to settle fearing job losses from the move. In reality, the merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery will result in job losses in the 10s of thousands anyways.

But not all Democrats caved. Senator Cory Booker sent a letter to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin urging:

…the Court to subject the proposed consent decree to an independent public-interest review before entering it. The Court should measure the proposed remedies against the relief the States originally sought: an injunction blocking the merger altogether. The decree does not address the core of the case—that the merger is anticompetitive and will eliminate jobs.

Booker is asking for the deal between Paramount and the states to be subject to an “independent public-interest review.”

Judge Martinez-Olguin seems to be doing some due diligence asking attorneys to address by September 29 the concerns raised by Sen. Booker.

The judge challenged the AG officials in a hearing today if the settlement actually addresses the concerns they raised and the Clayton Act which is about antitrust concerns.

The judge also asked if the deal was “not the result of collusion and was more of an arm’s length process.”

California Senior Assistant AG Paula Blizzard in the meeting argued for the settlement but said that they were still prepared to go to trail starting March 2, 2027 as well as acknowledging the negative response to the settlement. Blizzard also noted that New Jersey, the state Booker represents, was part of the AGs initially suing and is part of the settlement. Blizzard pushed hard for the settlement thinking the five year time frame of it will somehow protect consumers and industry workers and “preserve competition.” Paramount’s attorneys highlighted the penalties that will keep them honest.

No matter, this isn’t a done deal after all and with a September 29 response date, Paramount gets closer to its “ticking fee” kicking in and the deal getting more expensive each day it drags on.