Hollywood is not just another sector of our economy. It is part of our culture, one of our great global competitive advantages, and a source of well-paying jobs for hundreds of thousands of Californians.
From soundstages in Los Angeles to post-production facilities, visual effects shops, small vendors, independent contractors and family-owned businesses across the state, the movie and television industry supports an ecosystem that has taken generations to build and sustain.
California leaders are right to take seriously their responsibility to protect and strengthen that ecosystem and the workforce that depends on it.
The proposed $111 billion merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery warrants a careful and rigorous review grounded in facts, market realities and established antitrust principles. Antitrust enforcement is an essential, vital tool when a merger is likely to reduce competition, raise prices, suppress wages or limit consumer choice.
Attorney general Rob Bonta recently suggested that California sees “red flags” in the proposed transaction and is evaluating whether the state should mount an antitrust challenge. As a former California attorney general, I respect that office’s obligation and authority to closely examine these types of strategic transactions. Antitrust law is most effective when it is applied carefully, rigorously, and consistently. It should not be driven by politics, competing headlines, or reflexive opposition to corporate scale.
The question is not whether Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are large companies that when combined will be bigger. They are and the combined company will be. The question is whether combining them will substantially decrease competition in the marketplace in a manner that harms consumers and workers.
Traditional studios are no longer competing only with one another. California cannot and should not ignore that reality. Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are competing against global technology platforms and streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and others with enormous financial resources, diversified revenue streams and worldwide reach.
Even after this merger, a combined Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount would still face intense competition from these tech giants as well as from Disney, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Sony, Fox and a growing universe of other subscription, ad-supported and digital platforms. Combining two of the industry’s streaming players — HBO Max and Paramount+ — would result in a stronger competitor in the global marketplace with the ability to meaningfully invest in film and TV production and distribution for decades to come.
This distinction matters deeply for Californians.
When studios face financial strain, productions are delayed, moved to lower cost locations, or canceled altogether. The people hurt are not the executives but the writers, actors, camera operators, editors, set builders, drivers, costume designers, caterers, technicians and small businesses that depend on a robust production environment. In contrast, financially stable studios are better positioned to greenlight projects, build production pipelines, invest in innovative technology, and grow jobs in California.
California has already seen how fragile this ecosystem can be. Production decisions are increasingly mobile as other states and countries are aggressively competing for entertainment jobs. If California wants to remain the center of American storytelling, it should encourage companies with deep roots here to expand their scale to invest in domestic production.
Critics of consolidation often argue that mergers can lead to layoffs or reduced investment. Those concerns rightfully deserve attention and diligence. But there is also risk in allowing legacy entertainment companies to weaken further in an increasingly difficult market environment, especially in the face of entrenched, dominant competitors like Netflix. Financial instability can lead to fewer productions, less creative investment, and, ultimately, more jobs leaving California altogether.
Some have raised broader concerns about media ownership, editorial influence or political viewpoints, as the combined company would own both CBS News and CNN. This debate will undoubtedly continue to dominate talk shows and social media. I, too, worry about plutocratic dominance of media markets. But merger enforcement should remain focused on competition and the potential for consumer and worker harm — the core pillars of antitrust — not political disagreements over content or viewpoint.
As attorney general, I believed enforcement decisions had to be grounded in law, evidence and transparent standards. That principle is especially important in California, where decisions by state officials can have national consequences and direct effects on our own workers.
Attorney general Bonta is right to review the transaction carefully. But careful review is not the same as presumptive opposition.
Attorneys general have a responsibility to enforce antitrust laws vigorously when the facts justify it. They also have a responsibility to exercise restraint when the facts do not. Bringing weak or speculative cases may generate headlines, but it can ultimately undermine the credibility of legitimate antitrust enforcement.
Based on the publicly available evidence, this merger appears far more likely to strengthen the ability of traditional studios to compete in a rapidly changing media marketplace, where Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery remain smaller players than Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Disney, while giving two legacy California-rooted studios greater scale to invest in production, distribution and long-term creative jobs. The end result could bring economic stability that supports countless California jobs in an industry that is synonymous with our state identity.
California has a direct interest in protecting competition, consumer choice and the strength — much less storied legacy — of its entertainment economy and its workers. Based on the realities of today’s marketplace and the facts currently available, this merger appears to merit review, but not automatic resistance.
Antitrust enforcement serves the public best when it follows evidence wherever it leads. So far, the evidence suggests this transaction passes that test.
Bill Lockyer served as California’s attorney general from 1999 to 2007 and previously served as president pro tempore of the California State Senate.
