Paramount’s settlement with 12 states ties its Warner Bros. merger to a five‑year pledge to keep studio lots, add $300 million annually to U. film production, release 30+ movies a year and create a news‑editorial oversight board.
Paramount reached a settlement with the attorneys general of 12 states that is intended to clear the antitrust case blocking its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The agreement obligates the combined company to retain its California studio lots—Paramount Studios in Los Angeles and Warner Bros. Studios in Burbank—until at least Dec. 31, 2031.
Under the deal, the merged entity must invest at least an additional $300 million each year in U.S. film production, bringing total spending to $1.5 billion over five years, and release a minimum of 30 theatrical films annually. In the first two years, at least 20 of those films must be wide releases, rising to 21 of 32 in years three through five; at least four must be independent titles, and half must be produced or co‑produced with another company. Failure to meet these targets could trigger a six‑month grace period followed by a required divestiture of Miramax Studios.
The settlement also includes separate basic‑cable distribution commitments, a $47.5 million workforce fund for training and career development of employees laid off by the merger, and a $5 million annual contribution to an indie‑film fund. A “News Editorial Independence Board,” along with internal and independent monitors and a five‑state committee, will oversee the editorial independence of CNN and CBS News. If the company breaches any terms, it could be forced to divest several cable channels, including BET, VH1, Comedy Central and others. The company will also reimburse the states for reasonable legal fees up to $40 million.
The settlement’s provisions would take effect at the close of the merger and run for five calendar years thereafter, ending Dec. 31, 2031 if the merger closes before the end of 2026. Final implementation requires approval by the judge overseeing the antitrust case, leaving the ultimate enforceability of the terms uncertain.