talk about it<\/a>, news outlets want to talk about it, and there are some attempts to try to suggest that the source is from me or from someone close to me, but I\u2019ve never said that. I\u2019ve never thought that. I will never think that or say that.\n <\/p>\n\n \u201cI\u2019ll say what is actually true: A divestiture of CNN, a spinoff of CNN, a structural remedy that just applies to CNN will never, ever, ever, ever, ever resolve this case. It is not what we\u2019re looking for. It\u2019s not what we\u2019re interested in. It doesn\u2019t address our concerns.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cIf they want to come forward with some sort of structural remedy package that includes CNN being rolled off, we\u2019ll consider that. But that\u2019s not what we\u2019re looking for. It\u2019s not what we\u2019re interested in. It\u2019s not what we\u2019re focused on. We\u2019re focused on what the complaint says we\u2019re focused on \u2014 the wide-release theatrical film market, the blockbuster theatrical release market, the cable channel market.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cBut it\u2019s part of this Paramount PR campaign that\u2019s in overdrive. I think they\u2019re trying to play to the court of public opinion. They\u2019re suggesting that, instead of the very clear, clean antitrust analysis that we\u2019ve done here \u2014 where I\u2019m sure they\u2019re on their heels because the merger in the three markets we identify is presumptively unlawful \u2014 they\u2019re trying to say, \u2018Hey, this is just political. This is a Democrat AG, and Democrat AGs just want CNN to be free of the influence of the Ellisons.\u2019 And it\u2019s ridiculous. I mean, that\u2019s not part of our complaint. It\u2019s not adjacent to our complaint. It\u2019s not part of our complaint.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n Am I right that you would like to avoid an outcome where Paramount owns CNN, but that would not be sufficient to resolve this suit? Am I characterizing that correctly?\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cWe\u2019re just not seeking it. It\u2019s not the focus of our complaint. If they want to do that, I value it at more than zero. But it is very far from being close, even in the ballpark, of being sufficient. It doesn\u2019t even touch the three markets that we\u2019re talking about.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cSo if they want to include it, we\u2019ll consider it. But it\u2019s not something that we\u2019re looking for, seeking, pushing for. We\u2019re pushing for what the complaint says we\u2019re pushing for. We\u2019re seeking to block the merger.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n When Paramount says that you are defining the three markets far too narrowly, what will you say in response?\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cI think we define the market very precisely, and I think they don\u2019t like it because the analysis shows what we know to be true, which is that this is a presumptively unlawful merger because of the market concentration in those three markets.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n Aren\u2019t you litigating about the past \u2013 movie theaters, cable \u2014 when we all know the present and the future is streaming?\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cIt\u2019s not really about past, present or future. The law is indifferent to where markets are going, are they shrinking, are they growing. Millions of people across this country spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year at movie theaters, and that is a market. So are the licensing agreements that owners of cable channels have with cable companies. That\u2019s how Comcast and Cox and AT&T and satellite companies, DirecTV and Dish Network, that\u2019s how they are able to provide basic cable TV channels in their offerings.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cThere\u2019s no doubt those are markets. They\u2019re multimillion-dollar markets, and this merger impacts them in a way that\u2019s illegal.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n What about the ticking fee that goes into effect in October?\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cThat is a choice that Paramount made. They agreed to it as a party with Warner Bros. They might regret it, but they absolutely knew that this proposed merger was going to have to go through a regulatory process, and that that would take time.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cNow they\u2019re trying to somehow say that it\u2019s our fault or that we have to pay for it or that taxpayers have to pay for it. And it\u2019s perplexing. It\u2019s a very perplexing suggestion that the thing that they agreed to, we need to pay. I think the party that agreed to it has to pay it, pretty clearly.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cParamount planned for the antitrust review to extend to June 2027 \u2014 that\u2019s in the contract. Starting the ticking fee earlier may have been ill-advised for them, but it was their choice. They could have said no. They could have agreed to something else. But they\u2019ve made their bed, and now they have to lie in it.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n The news stories about Paramount potentially moving out of California: Are you taking those seriously?\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cIt smacks of what a monopolist would do, and it seems like a desperate last-ditch effort to try to leverage, bully, blackmail me and the other states from bringing a lawsuit.\n <\/p>\n
\n \u201cI think they were trying to threaten us. So, their gambit, their threat, their attempt to blackmail obviously didn\u2019t work, won\u2019t work, and will never work.\u201d\n <\/p>\n
\n This story has been updated with additional reporting.\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Lawyers for the 12-state coalition trying to block the Paramount\u2013Warner Bros. Discovery deal argued in court on Friday…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":403336,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7,9,8],"class_list":["post-403335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/403335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=403335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/403335\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/403336"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=403335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=403335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=403335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}