Trump slammed with MAJOR LAWSUIT, plans put at RISK

We have some major news coming out of. California. A lawsuit that the entire. country has been waiting for. I'm joined. now by the Attorney General of. California, Rob Bonta, to discuss. So, Attorney General Bonta, first and. foremost, can you explain this new. lawsuit that's just been filed today? >> Absolutely. Today, we filed a lawsuit in. federal court in the Northern District. of California. We being. California and 11 other state attorneys. general from throughout the country. seeking to block the merger of Paramount. and Warner Brothers based on the fact.

that it violates antitrust law, anti-monopoly law, specifically the. Clayton Act Section 7, which prevents mergers that. substantially lessen competition and in. three markets that we have defined in. our complaint, the Paramount Warner. Brothers proposed merger is. presumptively illegal because it. substantially lessens competition. That's specifically. the the distribution of wide-release. theatrical films, the distribution of.

top-grossing. theatrical films, blockbusters, or. tentpole films we we call them, and also the licensing of basic cable. channels to cable distributors. In in. those three markets throughout the. United States of America, this this. merger, if it were consummated, would. create. um a concentration in the marketplace. that substantially lessens competition. and is illegal. So, this is an illegal.

proposed merger, and we are moving to. block it. >> To what extent. is. Warner Brothers and Paramount already. merging together? And I ask that because. there is some concern that they're. getting the process started so that. it'll be that much easier for them to. eventually say to a court, "You know. what? It's It's too much to unwind at. this point because look at all of the. merging that's already been done up to. now." Is that a concern? >> No, that's not a concern. We're we we.

have filed timely here. We've preserved. all of our rights. We have asked. Paramount and Warner Brothers to. delay the closing until the court. decides on the the merits of our case. and we think we will prevail in this. case. If they don't agree to that, then we. will be seeking a temporary restraining. order to block. the closure of the deal. So, the the. deal has not closed. They are. obviously trying to get towards ultimate. closure of the deal. Paramount and.

Warner Brothers are, but they have. regulatory scrutiny to go through in. multiple jurisdictions including in the. EU, in the United States. So, our next. Star Trek now case. uh. we we sued. quite a bit later in the process just. before the closure and we still got a. timely lawsuit filed and got a. preliminary injunction. So, they are. moving down the road towards ultimate. closure. I know is their desire, but we. have filed our lawsuit timely, preserved. all of our rights and preserved our.

ability to block the merger should the. court agree with us. A quick note, my. new book The Day After is now officially. on sale. If you appreciate my videos and. would like to support my work, please. consider grabbing a copy this week since. this week is my best shot at hitting the. New York Times best seller list. I also. have my book tour happening this week in. Washington D.C., New York and L.A. You. can find the link to order the book and. to go to the book tour in the post. description or at Brian Tyler. Cohen.com/book. So, as we talk about the consolidation. of media and especially the.

administration's. behavior toward the media, to what. extent does even the latest act by this. administration sending subpoenas and. federal agents to the doors of five. different New York Times reporters. fuel or or have some impact on on this. litigation because I feel like that is a. small part of a similar story. >> Yeah, you know, I I I've always been a. vocal supporter of a of a free. independent press as a.

a watchdog to keep government. accountable, to tell stories, to do. investigative journalism, to reveal. truths. and bring those to light and that. remains important. And and the Trump. administration unfortunately one of the. signature components of Trump 1.0 and. 2.0 has been to attack the press. >> Yeah. >> To, you know, use words like fake news. and alternative facts and to to berate. journalists. And that is wrong. That is. bad for democracy.

He needs to know that the press is there. to to keep him honest and hold him. accountable and that's an appropriate. and important role in our democracy. So, you know, here we of course are. are not naive and and and see the. potential impacts on a free press and. independent press. You know, the the proposed merged. company would have both CNN and CBS. But our our analysis is just a. straight-up antitrust analysis based on. the facts and the law, the concentration. of the markets, the anti-competitive.

impacts of the proposed merger. What one outcome is is that there's. likely to be an erosion of the quality. of the content. of of you know, TV series and movies and. and and and news. Less perspectives, less diversity perspectives, fewer views, fewer. types of light being shed on the truth. and and that is also. part of the competitive impact. anti-competitive impact that we are.

talking about here in our lawsuit. >> So, let's talk a little bit about the. mechanics of this case. Where is it. being filed and is there any precedent. from whatever federal court that is that. might inform how a judge might view uh, this case in particular? >> Yeah, we filed in the Northern District. of California, the federal court in the. San Francisco Bay Area, and. we are seeking to be in front of a judge. who already has a private plaintiff's.

case that's challenging the merger. So, we think that's a good thing to have a. judge that is up to speed on this issue. that has seen another case already um, in in that courtroom to to be informed. and to have an understanding of the. case. And you know, we we think that. we'll prevail in front of any judge in. in in any court. Now, but particularly. one who has some knowledge, you know, a. depth of of of insight into this issue. because of this prior case. Well, now it's a coexisting case. Um,

then I think we think that that's. helpful. And again, the next step will. be to decide whether we get an need to. bring in temporary restraining order to. temporarily halt the proposed merger. during the pendency of the litigation or. if Paramount Warner Brothers will agree. to that. And then we we we know we'll go. through the process just like we did in. Ticketmaster Live Nation and just like. we are Nextstar Tegna, where we respond. to any motions by the defendants. We. bring our case. We have our experts talk about the.

appropriate markets and the impact of. the proposed merger on those markets. And then. in Ticketmaster Live Nation we had a. jury make the ultimate decision. Here, we'll have a judge make the final. decision, but the next step will be to. see if the the merger will be. temporarily halted during the pendency. of the litigation. >> Two questions here. One, will your case. merge with the private case that's going. on right now? And the second question, how long do you expect this whole. process to take roughly?

>> Right. So, the for the first question. about the private plaintiff's case, the. cases won't merge, but they'll be what. we call in in legalese related. They. they are. related cases, they're they're separate. cases, so they won't merge, but they are. generally on the same topic. They're. challenging this. Paramount Warner Brothers proposed. merger. So, it'll be they'll be before. the same judge, related, but not merged. And with respect to time, it depends on. what the defendants do. Sometimes they.

can. bring motions. to dismiss or for summary judgment. They can make things difficult in. discovery, which require require us to. bring motions to get the information, additional information that we need, or. take the depositions that we need, or. get the materials that we need. So, some of it's dependent on them, but. you know, typically it it would be over. a year and less than three. is is sort of a broad book ending. framework of, you know, the the earliest. to the latest. >> Is there anything to prevent CNN and CBS.

from moving forward with the merger. anyway, other than a temporary. restraining order or a preliminary. injunction? Otherwise, do you expect the. Ellisons to make it so that this merger. still moves ahead while litigation is. happening? >> I'm not sure what they're going to try. to do, but if they don't agree to halt. the merger voluntarily, we'll we'll go. to court and and seek the temporary. restraining order. We think we'll we'll. get it. They do. I think they're clearing the final.

hurdle hurdles in their. regulatory scrutiny in the different. jurisdictions around the world. And so, I think the EU still needs to. finalize its its decisions. I think it's. it made some indications about where it. might land, but there's a reason they haven't closed. yet cuz that they're not through all the. final regulatory hurdles yet. >> Can you talk about the fact that, you. know, you are obviously the Attorney. General of California, even though we've. seen the entertainment industry kind of.

dissipate and go to different states, and in some cases even different. countries, there's obviously a thriving. industry in New Jersey and New Mexico, and Georgia, and New York, and and. Vancouver, and Toronto, and the UK. So, it's all around the United States and. around the world, but still there is I'm. I'm presuming there is still some. claim of ownership over the industry as. a whole. And so, can you explain why it. was important for you to spearhead this. case as we're kind of protecting the. integrity of a huge aspect of of this.

industry? >> Sure. You know, at Paramount and Warner. Brothers each are massive companies, you. know, each in their own right as as a. merged company as they're proposing to. be. They would be an entertainment. behemoth, you know, absolutely gigantic. across multiple markets and you know, from streaming to. film distribution to. cable channel ownership and and beyond, you know, owning news companies, networks as well. And so, there's a.

there's a national impact here and we've. argued in our complaint that the. appropriate geographic market for this. case is the United States of America, the whole country. And. you know, California, the largest state. in the nation, the fourth largest. economy in the world, the home of iconic. Hollywood. And the press conference I. had earlier today was in front of the. iconic Hollywood sign. That wasn't by. accident, it was by design to. talk about the history and the legacy of.

Hollywood right here in California and. the incredible movies that have been. created in the studios that have. started here and grown here and produced. movies here. The the work that and the. jobs that have been created for so many. creatives and and members of of teams. that produce content that that create. storytelling that can inspire, that can. shed new light on things we haven't seen. before, that can open up our minds to. things we maybe didn't know we needed to. know.

And that has all been created. in in in Hollywood. It's you know that. the place where so much of it has. started and grown. Of course, films are. are shot all over the world and all over. the country and all over North America, but there's only one Hollywood. And this. is a particularly important to. California, to me as California's. Attorney General, to our people, to our. state, to our future because of the. legacy and the history and the ongoing. durability of a thriving Hollywood.

>> Perfectly put. We'll leave it there. Attorney General Bonta, thanks so much. for taking the time and thanks for the. work that you're doing on this case. >> My pleasure, Brian. Thanks for having. me.