Category Archives: Lawsuits

ABC has filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC’s “Deeply un-American” Censorship

ABC and Disney are taking the fight to the FCC and the Trump Administration for what it calls a “retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.“

Earlier this year, the FCC, and thus the Trump Administration, began to threaten ABC and its parent company Disney over speech that aired on the channel it disagreed with. ABC was directed by the FCC to file early renewals for its licensed TV stations, applying to eight affiliate stations owned by ABC. The FCC, and its chair Brendan Carr, were also investigating Disney for its “DEI practices,” claiming “possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination.”

Unlike other media companies and businesses that have caved to threats from the administration (including pretty obvious settlement bribes to Trump charities), Disney and ABC are fighting back, having filed a lawsuit against the FCC, its chairman Brendan Carr, commissioner Anna Gomez, commissioner Olivia Trusty, and two “John Does” also listed as commissioners of the FCC who have yet to be appointed.

In the filing, ABC and Disney highlight attacks on the channel and its talent’s free speech by President Donald Trump, using his own words and social media posts against him. It also quotes Carr who issued an ultimatum regarding on-air comments by ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways . . . to take action . . . on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

ABC and Disney say they have seen increased pressure from the administration that has culminated in threats of broadcast licenses for the eight stations mentioned above and notes how early the reviews have been demanded, some not even halfway through their current license terms.

ABC also highlights this pressure has impacted programming decisions, deciding to livestream a speech by President Trump but not broadcasting it on television which resulted in President Trump calling for the revocation of the ABC owned stations’ broadcast licenses as well as NBC which also chose to not cover the speech.

Since the Commission cannot lawfully grant renewal this early, ABC and Disney are convinced a decision from the FCC, which is expected soon, will be a negative one.

The consequences of the Administration’s campaign against free speech reach well beyond ABC. If the Administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government. In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.

The FCC Chairman has left little doubt that this is his goal. He has publicly touted the Administration’s success in extracting speech-related concessions from other media companies, boasting that it has “t[aken] on the fake news media” and is “winning,” cataloguing with evident pride the perceived critical voices that have been taken off the air.

ABC and Disney are asking for the court to:

Declare that Defendants’ order requiring that Plaintiffs file early license renewal applications constitutes retaliatory action in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Enter temporary, preliminary, and permanent orders providing that Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees subject to their supervision, direction, and control are enjoined from taking any continuing or further action against Plaintiffs in relation to the early license renewal applications, including issuing a Hearing Designation Order;

Enter temporary, preliminary, and permanent orders, providing that Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees subject to their supervision, direction, and control are enjoined from taking any actions, formal or informal, to coerce or threaten Plaintiffs with sanctions in an effort to alter their exercise of editorial discretion; and

Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and just.

In their complaint, ABC and Disney lay out how threats from the White House and FCC have impacted their coverage and decisions and is an example as to why the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount should be stopped. The media company has already shown its willingness to cater to Trump’s complaints and whims.

You can read ABC and Disney’s full filing with detailed history of the attack by President Trump, the White House, and FCC against the companies.

Loading Viewer…

Diamond Trustee Morgan W. Fisher Motions to Limit Future Notices

A compromise between “old” Diamond and its trustee Morgan W. Fisher and 15 publishers wasn’t the only bit of news today when it comes to Diamond’s chapter 7 process. Fisher also submitted an order limiting future notices in the case.

The order is interesting as it lays out a lot of information in the case that reminds us of the scope of the situation.

  • Diamond’s credit matrix initially consisted of almost 1,300 parties and when subscription comic book customers was added it was over 1,500.
  • 75 claims were filed for the Chapter 7 with the highest amount being Dynamic forces with $29,514,087.40 to $182 from Irish Holdings.
  • Omni Agent Solutions logged 742 claims in the main case and 71 claims concerning Diamond Select Toys
  • There were 759 unique claimants, 28 were governmental agencies.

The motion raises the difficulty and cost in notifying everyone every update about the case and there’s numerous other ways to get notifications like a Notice of Appearance and Request for Notices.

Fisher is motioning to limit notices to:

  • Counsel for the Debtor;
  • The Trustee and his counsel;
  • Secured Creditors;
  • The Debtor’s 20 largest unsecured creditors, based on filed claims;
  • The Office of the United States Trustee;
  • The Internal Revenue Service, and the Comptroller of the State of Maryland;
  • Persons who have appeared or filed a notice of appearance and request for service in the case (including persons served via CM/ECF);
  • Parties who are directly affected by a particular motion, paper or pleading.

The 20 largest creditors are:

  • Dynamic Forces, Inc.: $29,514,087.40
  • Alliance Entertainment, LLC: $10,008,534.05
  • Bandai Limited: $9,245,465.10
  • Penguin Random House LLC: $8,941,467.05
  • Passage Trading: $6,297,244.00
  • Oni-Lion Forge Publishing Group: $5,646,907.40
  • Udon Entertainment Inc.: $4,327,716.06
  • Valiant Entertainment LLC: $4,070,588.30
  • Disney Consumer Products, Inc.: $3,638,592.00
  • Creative Grand Industrial HK Limited: $2,960,931.87
  • Zenescope Entertainment, Inc.: $2,360,907.16
  • Fantagraphics Books Inc.: $2,279,330.68
  • MegaHouse Corporation: $2,150,730.00
  • Magnetic Press LLC: $1,957,576.53
  • TMP International, LLC: $1,774,558.48
  • Aftershock Comics, LLC: $1,767,573.53
  • ARA, Inc.: $1,229,027.36
  • Funko, LLC: $1,206,854.62
  • Action Figure Authority Inc.: $1,200,000.00
  • Hasbro, Inc.: $1,185,638.23

They’re also looking for permission to pay for the notifications without having to ask permission for each time they need to do so.

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Diamond’s Trustee Morgan W. Fisher and some Publishers Reach a Settlement over Consigned Goods

It’s a hell of a new comic book day as court documents have been released as to a settlement between Diamond‘s trustee Morgan W. Fisher and a group of publishers concerning consigned goods being held by Diamond and Sparkle Pop.

To catch folks up, when Diamond declared bankruptcy, it held a large quantity of product in its warehouse that was on consignment. After some time, Diamond claimed it had a right to sell the consigned goods to help pay down its debt and that nothing would go to the publishers. The publishers claimed it was their property and that when Diamond declared bankruptcy it triggered a whole bunch of different things that would allow them to get their product back. This has gone on for about a year and a half that resulted in all sorts of off-shoot lawsuits and a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations.

To make things even more complicated, some items were sold when they weren’t supposed to. Sparkle Pop, the company that took over “old” Diamond, deposited $840,151.00 into an account of which $669,410.00 represents sales of goods from the Consignment Group. In addition, Sparkle Pop has $417,496.00 for sales after May 15 2025 through February 13, 2026 of which $273,503.00 represents sales of the Consignment Group’s goods. Of that initial amount of the $669,410, $50,000 will go to the publishers with $619,410 going to the trustee but what is in escrow and owed to the other publishers not part of this group needs to be figured out and settled. The $273,503 will go entirely to the trustee. If it’s found Sparkle Pop sold even more than what’s known, the publishers need to pursue that at their own cost and 5% of any recovery from that would go to the Diamond trustee after expenses for the legal proceeding are handled.

Now, we have a resolution, a “compromise,” and from the cursory read, it seems like it’s pretty much what we expected the result to be.

The compromise in short is that a certain group of publishers will get some money for the product of theirs sold and will be able to get the product back but they’ll need to pay for packing and shipping. The compromise is similar to a deal cut between Image and Diamond (the money is the difference between the two).

What’s also big is that it terminates any distribution agreement that currently exists for these publishers with “old” Diamond. This in particular stands out:

The Trustee agrees and acknowledges that the Consignment Group Members were the owners of their respective Consignment Inventory at all times prior and subsequent to the Petition Date, and the TSA did not permit or authorize Sparkle Pop to sell, distribute or dispose of Consignment Inventory on behalf of either the Consignment Group members or the Debtors other than in accordance with the Distribution Agreements and at the Debtor’s sole and express direction.

Publishers that are part of the compromise:

Ablaze
American Mythology
Avatar Press
Battle Quest Comics
Action Lab

Drawn & Quarterly
Fantagraphics
Green Ronin Publishing
Hermes Press
Living the Line

Paizo
UDON Entertainment
Zenescope
BOOM! Studios
Dynamite Forces/Dynamite

There are some publishers who are noticeably missing from this list and have been participating in court proceedings up to this point.

The bullet points of key parts of the deal and we’ve put in bold the major ones:

  • The Court Registry Escrow not allocable to the Otherwise Represented Consignors shall be released to the Parties and distributed as follows: (a) Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) to the Consignment Group Members that are also members of the Ad Hoc Committee (to be allocated as it/they deem appropriate); and (b) the remainder to the Trustee (thus, the net amount to be paid to the Estates is $619,410.00).
  • The Settling Parties shall jointly move the Bankruptcy Court for an order directing that Sparkle Pop release the aggregate amount allocable to each Consignment Group Member from the SP Escrow, as set forth on Schedule 3 to the Trustee.
  • If not already rejected, all Distribution Agreements of the Consignment Group Members shall be deemed rejected as of the Effective Date of the Settlement and terminated in their entirety.
  • The Consignment Group Members will have the authority and are required to retrieve any and all of their inventory from the Warehouse, bearing their own costs of picking and packing such inventory.
  • Sparkle Pop is entitled to pick and pack the inventory identified by the Consignment Group Members, at rates comparable to what the Consignment Group Members can obtain from other third parties to complete the work. If Sparkle Pop declines to do the pick and pack work at comparable rates, the Consignment Group Members are authorized to access their Consignment Inventory and remove it from the Warehouse under the timelines set forth in the Settlement.
  • The Trustee, on behalf of himself the Debtors, releases and discharges the Consignment Group Members from any and all claims, causes of actions, obligations, and damages including, but not limited to, preference claims. Similar releases from the Consignment Group Members flow to the Trustee and Estates, subject to certain claims as described herein and in the Settlement. In other words, the releases are essentially mutual.
  • The Consignment Group Members are reserving all rights with regard to any additional claims against Sparkle Pop. In the event any Consignment Group Member recovers additional funds from Sparkle Pop on account of unauthorized sales of or shortages in the Consigned Inventory in excess of the Court Registry Escrow and SP Escrow, such Consignment Group Member shall pay five percent (5%) of any such recovery to the Estates, net of any legal fees and expenses required to collect such amounts.
  • In the event Sparkle Pop obtains a judgment against any Consignment Group Member for rent, storage, or similar charges with respect to such Consignment Group Member’s Consigned Inventory stored at the Warehouse, that Consignment Group Member shall have an Administrative Claim against the Estates in an amount equal to 25% of such claim.
  • In the event Sparkle Pop or the Consignment Group Members obtain a finding that any consignment inventory delivered by any Consignment Group Member was unreported as being sold by the Debtor prior to the Settlement, but was in fact sold by or at the Debtor’s direction, and paid to or for the benefit of Debtor, the respective Consignment Group Member(s) that delivered any such Missing Inventory shall be entitled to a chapter 7 administrative claim against the Debtors that is subordinate to certain other expenses and claims including any finally-allowed post-conversion administrative claims of Sparkle Pop, JP Morgan Chase and/or the Trustee’s professionals.
  • Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, the Trustee will file a notice of abandonment pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 554 as to the Consigned Inventory.
  • Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, the Trustee shall assign to the Consignment Group all of his rights, title, and interest, without representation or warranty of any kind, in and to the CG Adversary Proceedings as plaintiff therein.
  • Within ten (10) days after the Effective Date, (i) the Trustee will file a notice of dismissal of the Denial Order Appeal (if not already resolved), and (ii) the Members of the Consignment Group, as applicable, will file a notice of dismissal of the CG Adversary Counterclaims.

But… there’s more!

The Consignment Group Members are entitled to file a “substantial contribution claim” for their legal fees and costs having to do with this fight.

Other consignors who are not part of this settlement as settling parties have to reach a resolution with the Consignment Group Members and its counsel on a fee and expense sharing arrangement. But, the Trustee and other consignors who are not part of this agreement could reach their own settlement.

What’s big, and why we thought there would be a settlement, it ends Sparkle Pop charging “old” Diamond and its trustee in what’s described as a “burdensome administrative cost.”

The Parties believes the Settlement is in the best interest of the Estates. It eliminates a burdensome administrative cost that is being asserted by Sparkle Pop with regard to the continued storage of the Consignment Inventory at the Warehouse; it relieves the Trustee from any further involvement in the CG Adversary Proceedings of the Settling Parties and the Appeal; it provides a substantial cash infusion to the Debtors’ Estate; and it protects the Consignment Group Members from further erosion of value of their Consignment Inventory as well as prevents the flooding of the market with respect to unauthorized sales of their inventory.

You can read all of the documents below and we’ll have more as this major decision unfolds:

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Anthropic’s $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement is Approved

Anthropic

A judge has signed off on the $1.5 billion settlement of a class action lawsuit against Anthropic for its misuse of their books to train their AI.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted the approval, the largest known settlement of a U.S. copyright case, and rejected claims that the settlement was too small.

The deal was initially approved in September 2025 by now-retired Judge William Alsup.

The lawsuit was launched in 2024 and said that Anthropic used books without permission to teach the artificial system, Claude.

The ruling was a bit mixed in that some of the use was ruled as fair use but the company was nailed for saving more than 7 million pirated books into a “central library.” A trial was scheduled for December.

Authors and other copyright holders filed claims covering over 92% of the more than 480,000 works included ​in the settlement, an attorney for the authors said during a court hearing.

Some authors believed the settlement was not large enough and that the attorneys were receiving too much from the settlement. The attorneys were receiving more than $101 million of their $187.5 million in their requested fees.

Separate lawsuits have been filed by authors who have opted out of the settlement.

Sparkle Pop’s Motion for Relief is Denied Without Prejudice

Red stamp with the word 'DENIED' prominently displayed.

While it feels like the comic industry has moved on from Diamond’s chapter 7 process, the court cases are very much still active with numerous major decisions still to be made. In April, Sparkle Pop filed a motion “for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its rights under applicable state law with respect to the goods remaining in a distribution facility owned and operated by Sparkle Pop.” One of the ongoing fights in Diamond‘s bankruptcy concerns consigned goods provided by publishers and still “held” by Diamond. Publishers of course want their inventory back while Diamond claims it has a right to it so it can sell the product and pay back creditors. The inventory is currently being stored in a facility run by Sparkle Pop, one of the winners of the bidding for Diamond’s assets during the bankruptcy.

In the filing, Sparkle Pop stated there are “8,250,936 units of these goods being stored at the Mississippi Facility.”

Sparkle Pop also stated it is owed $641,430 as of April 2026 and has not received its rent payments from (old) Diamond since November 2025. Rent is $125,000 a month. Sparkle Pop previously filed an administrative claim for $580,000 in March.

In short, Sparkle Pop was arguing it is suffering damages from (old) Diamond’s consigned goods being stored in their facility.

Sparkle Pop was looking to be reimbursed for all of its fees and costs related to the consigned goods and it threatened to exercise its “rights and remedies under Mississippi law to, among other things, assert a warehouseman’s lien on the consigned goods and/or take the necessary steps, under applicable law (or with the consent of the parties), to arrange for these goods to be removed from the Mississippi Facility.”

Today, the court has come down with its decision:

Evidentiary Hearing Held: re: 1265 Relief from Stay and Notice of Motion IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING AFTER 60 DAYS. Order to be prepared by Movant.(related document(s) 1265 Relief from Stay and Notice of Motion, 1277 Objection, 1280 Objection) (Scott, Cherita)

Since it was “denied without prejudice,” Sparkle Pop can refile its motion again with adjustments. It’s possible there was an error in the original filing or new information that has dropped that impacts the original.

We’ll have more information as this court case continues and update this one if more details emerge as to the reason the motion was denied.

Expeditors International of Washington gets its Administrative Expenses Approved in Diamond’s Chapter 7 Case

It’s been rather quiet when it comes to Diamond‘s chapter 7 process. Our alerts have been filled up with notices of returned mail… and not much else. But, today saw a little bit of news with one order approved by the court.

Expeditors International of Washington has had its administrative expense claim approved. There was no objections to the motion according to the approval. Expeditors International of Washington is a logistics company.

The company will receive their claim amount of $266,855.15.

Loading Viewer…

Discovery and Confidentiality settled in Sparkle Pop v. Alliance Entertainment

In June 2025, Sparkle Pop began a proceeding against Alliance Entertainment for “disregard of binding non-disclosure and non-solicitation obligations and its theft of valuable of trade secrets.” For those who might not remember, Alliance Entertainment originally won the bid for Diamond’s assets, then Diamond went with Universal Distribution and Ad Populum (Sparkle Pop’s parent company), then back to Alliance. Then Alliance ended their bid claiming fraud by Diamond and those involved. Eventually Universal Distribution and Ad Populum/Sparkle Pop won the bid.

Sparkle Pop accuses Alliance for abusing the bankruptcy process and gaining inside access to Diamond’s “employees, trade secrets, and proprietary information, all while delaying the sale of assets to legitimate purchasers.” Alliance recently hired seven Diamond employees which Sparkle Pop calls “poaching” and claiming it has “hobbled” its business. It further claims Alliance has “exploited its inside knowledge of Diamond Comic’s confidential information to usurp key distribution relationships with vendors and customers, further undermining the business.”

Alliance has signed a non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement that bars the accused conduct according to the motion.

Two new orders have been handed down in the case regarding confidentiality and discovery.

The confidentiality order states that party to the litigation and non-party information can designate things “confidential” that contain trade secrets, sensitive technical information, marketing, financial, sales, and other business, contains private personal information, information that’s gained in confidence from third parties, and other information that falls under this in good faith.

It also lays out information that’s “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and what confidential material can be disclosed. It also goes on about what happens if there’s a data breach, or unintentional disclosure.

We’re expecting a lot of this as the case progresses but we’ll do what we can to connect the dots.

Also release is the order regarding “discovery and electronically stored information.” Discovery is the process when the parties hand over information to each other relevant to the case, think emails, texts, Slack messages, that sort of thing. It can involve millions of documents that have to be gone through. This document goes through the details of the information, the format it has to be provided, and a lot more small details as to the data involved.

We’ll be having an expert on to talk about the discovery process and the details of this order.

You can read both documents below.

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Discovery Dates in Sparkle Pop’s Adversary Proceeding Against Alliance Entertainment Set

In June 2025, Sparkle Pop began a proceeding against Alliance Entertainment for “disregard of binding non-disclosure and non-solicitation obligations and its theft of valuable of trade secrets.” For those who might not remember, Alliance Entertainment originally won the bid for Diamond’s assets, then Diamond went with Universal Distribution and Ad Populum (Sparkle Pop’s parent company), then back to Alliance. Then Alliance ended their bid claiming fraud by Diamond and those involved. Eventually Universal Distribution and Ad Populum/Sparkle Pop won the bid.

Sparkle Pop accuses Alliance for abusing the bankruptcy process and gaining inside access to Diamond’s “employees, trade secrets, and proprietary information, all while delaying the sale of assets to legitimate purchasers.” Alliance recently hired seven Diamond employees which Sparkle Pop calls “poaching” and claiming it has “hobbled” its business. It further claims Alliance has “exploited its inside knowledge of Diamond Comic’s confidential information to usurp key distribution relationships with vendors and customers, further undermining the business.”

Alliance has signed a non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement that bars the accused conduct according to the motion.

There’s lots of details about violations of NDAs, employee’s confidentially obligations, and that Alliance is attempting to poach Amazon away from Diamond. Former Diamond employees named include Joe Lunday who called Amazon on his last day to tell them of his switching of employers. Diamond Comic’s law firm Saul Ewing has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Alliance on behalf of Diamond.

The motion claims the following counts:

  1. Violation of the DTSA
  2. Violation of the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act
  3. Tortious Interference with Employment Contracts
  4. Tortious Interference with the APA and TSA
  5. Injunctive Relief

Sparkle Pop is seeking damages to be proved during trial, a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction that would prevent further soliciting Diamond employees or any business relationship with Amazon, and using any Diamond trade secrets.

Since June, things have gone a bit wonky. In December of 2025, the parties agreed to some deadlines but Diamond also began to convert from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 and there was a stay placed on the proceedings until February 2026.

The parties have filed a motion amending the scheduling order and clarify the applicable deadlines now that the stay has been lifted.

Per the latest filing:

  1. Fact discovery will continue through November 30, 2026. The Parties may take fact depositions at any time prior to the expiration of the fact discovery deadline.
  2. The parties will submit a confidentiality order and protocol for the exchange of electronically stored information to the Court for approval on or before May 27, 2026.
  3. Any motion to amend pleadings must be electronically filed no later than August 14, 2026.
  4. All other terms of the Joint Report that will binding upon the partes.

Discovery is a key part of trials where the parties get information from each other regarding the case. So, think documents, email and text conversations, stuff like that. It can involve millions of documents that have to be gone through and can be used as evidence in the case.

So, with discovery continuing through November 30, expect this case to go into 2027. You can check out the filed motion below:

Loading Viewer…

Disney, Warner Bros., Universal and Midjourney Discovery Dispute Kicked to Late May

In February, a plan was hashed out between Disney, Warner Bros.,Universal, and Midjourney over discovery when it comes to their possible trial. In March a dispute was brought up by the various parties over discovery and the numerous parties need the judge to hash things out.

While a conference was take place on March 12, it now looks like that has been moved until March 22. From a filing released today:

The parties have requested an informal discovery conference with Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin. Counsel for each party has submitted their respective positions and the issue will be adjudicated in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s procedure.

Date/Time: May 22, 2026 at 09:00 AM

In June 2025, studios started to sue Midjourney. In multiple lawsuits, they claimed the AI platform was a “bottomless pit of plagiarism.” In November, Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. consolidated their two cases into one. Their cases were similar and made similar claims against the tech company.

This case impacts the comics community as both Marvel (via Disney) and DC Comics (via Warner Bros.) are part of the plaintiffs and specifically mentioned in filings.

We haven’t see what the dispute is but will update this article with more details or a full report when a decision is made.

Below is the original dispute document as well as the latest filing:

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Loading Viewer…

Consumers are Suing to Block the Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

Warner Bros.

The stockholders have voted, the federal government will provide little resistance, and rumors are European regulators won’t ask for any changes to the deal. But, there’s still some resistance to the $110 billion merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.

A group of Paramount+ subscribers have filed a federal antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to stop the deal. They claim that the deal will harm competition, raise prices, and reduce quality.

The move also attempts to rollback Skydance’s takeover Paramount stating that and the Warner Bros. Discovery is an attempt at consolidation and eliminating rivals.

From the lawsuit:

Paramount’s ability and incentive to raise prices, reduce output, narrow slates, reduce quality and worsen consumer-facing terms, including through control of distribution, exclusivity, windowing and licensing.

If Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery is consummated, the combined firm would have increased ability and incentive to reduce theatrical film output and narrow release slates, substantially lessening competition by leaving moviegoers with fewer theatrical titles, less genre and budget variety, and fewer meaningful alternatives at local theaters.

Skydance’s nontrivial acquisition of Paramount Global and the proposed nontrivial acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery reflect the same strategy of refusing to compete by building better products, investing, innovating, or winning customers through rivalry on the merits, but instead pursuing scale through consolidation that eliminates independent rivals and weakens the competitive constraints that protect consumers.

The lawsuit focuses on Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. That bars mergers that reduces competition and the number of “top companies” in a marketplace. With this deal, Paramount would control about 24% of the theatrical distribution market.

The post-merger top four studios would be Paramount/Warner Bros. at approximately 23.6%, Disney at approximately 21.4%, Universal at approximately 20.2%, and Sony/Columbia at approximately 11.1%, for a combined top-four share of approximately 76.3%. The proposed transaction, therefore, would not merely combine two studios; it would increase top-four concentration by approximately 10.2 percentage points and eliminate Paramount as an independent studio competitor.

That percentage of the market has caused the trade organization Cinema United to oppose the merger as well. Over 4,000 individuals have no signed a letter opposing the merger.

The lawsuit also focuses on the consolidation of the news media. In the takeover of Paramount by Skydance, they gained control of CBS News. The Ellisons are also an investor in the US controlled TikTok, a major source of news. The lawsuit focuses on the consolidation of news and that the new company would control CNN if it acquires Warner Bros. Discovery. It too would “weaken competitive constraints that protect editorial rivalry, investigative resources, and viewpoint diversity.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is reviewing the merger and its expected there will be legal action from state attorneys general opposing the merger.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »