A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a lawsuit from some consumers trying to stop the $111 billion merger between Paramount and Warner Bros.did not have enough legal grounds.The judge, Araceli Martínez-Olguín, said the people who started the lawsuit—three current Paramount+ users and two people who might subscribe—did not show they were harmed by the merger.She also said the lawsuit didn't clearly show any real damage to consumers that would require government action.But she gave the lawsuit writers a chance to fix their argument and try again.
The judge wrote that the lawsuit included general claims like "lower quality and variety" and "less choice" but didn't provide specific facts to show these issues actually happened or would happen.
She also said the lawsuit’s main argument was that being a consumer means you’re harmed if big entertainment companies merge, which she found too vague.
The same judge will also handle another case involving 12 state attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America, who argue that the merger will hurt the entertainment industry.
That case is set to go to trial in March 2027.
Paramount-Skydance CEO David Ellison recently wrote an article in The New York Times, saying the reason the state attorneys general are against the merger isn't because of companies getting too big, but because he might take over CNN if he gets Warner Bros.
Ellison has connections to former President Donald Trump, who has criticized CNN, and recent issues with the show "60 Minutes" have made some people in Hollywood worried about what will happen to CNN.
Ellison said the real issue is not about market share, but whether he can be trusted to run CNN properly.
He promised that he doesn’t want to influence the newsroom and believes that news should be based on facts and truth.