When Rob Bonta sued to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger in July, he said he was doing so because the Trump administration had failed to act for political reasons.
“They are greenlighting deals that their own antitrust section at U.S. DOJ knows and believes are unlawful, and they’re overriding them in the White House with political decisions,” he said. “They are not just missing in action, they are making things worse for Americans … So our role is more important.”
A mere two months later, Bonta has had to abandon his case in exchange for only modest conditions — largely due to political interference.
Gov. Gavin Newsom weighed in early and often, suggesting that it would be better for Bonta to settle than risk going to trial and subjecting the industry to a prolonged period of uncertainty.
Paramount also laid on the pressure, lining up political and industry supporters and threatening to flee to Tennessee if no deal was reached by Oct. 1. Amid a historic production slump, political leaders feared the optics of a major studio leaving Hollywood. And in the end, the one-two punch of Newsom and Nashville proved too much for Bonta to withstand.
“I think Bonta, in the legal case, had the upper hand,” said Abiel Garcia, a former California deputy attorney general. “He got cut at the knees on every other issue.”
Bonta is not alone among state attorneys general in seeking to fill the void left by the Trump DOJ on antitrust enforcement. On a series of cases — HPE/Juniper Networks, Ticketmaster, and Nexstar/Tegna — Bonta has joined multistate coalitions in defying the DOJ’s hands-off approach.
In that context, Newsom’s involvement in the Paramount case has raised concerns elsewhere about whether state AGs are just as vulnerable to political influence.
“My governor has never, publicly or privately, given me any feedback on any antitrust case,” Phil Weiser, the Colorado attorney general, pointedly told CFTN News last week.
Paula Blizzard, the head of the California A.G.’s antitrust section, was also asked about Newsom’s push for a settlement at a panel discussion at George Washington University. She noted that A. G.s are “separately elected as independent officials.”
“That’s probably all I can say,” she added.
Bonta argued that antitrust enforcement was a necessary check on “billionaires currying favor with the president so he’ll do their bidding.” Paramount CEO David Ellison has indeed courted the president’s support for more than a year, appearing with him at UFC events as he sought to win him over.
But of course, from Paramount’s perspective, it was Bonta — not Trump — who was acting “politically.” In his press conference announcing the case, Bonta mentioned Trump’s name seven times — and Ellison’s only once — while invoking the “no kings” anti-Trump rallying cry.
Some observers also thought Bonta’s antitrust case was marginal, at best. And it got harder as the Directors Guild of America, IATSE, and then Cinema United — representing the supposed victims — came out for a settlement.
But Paramount’s clout can be measured by the fact that it prevailed in the suit without winning a single favorable ruling in court. And when it appeared to be struggling, the Trump-led DOJ and two Republican state AGs sought to intervene, challenging in effect whether states should be allowed to enforce antitrust violations at all.
In that kind of fight, Bonta needed allies — and he was left without many in the end.
“It seems the attorney general overestimated the political support he was going to receive from the governor and other luminaries in his party,” said Bill Kovacic, a professor at GWU. “That’s a reminder of the power companies have to shape opinions by throwing their economic weight around.”
