Paramount and a coalition of 12 state attorneys general defended their antitrust settlement on Monday from a series of criticisms raised last week by New Jersey Sen. In separate filings, the two sides argued that the deal was vigorously negotiated, has “teeth,” and should not be subjected to an independent “public interest” review. Paramount argued that the deal resolves the state’s primary concern of a reduction in theatrical releases after it merges with Warner Bros.
Among other concerns, Booker noted that the consent decree expires after only five years, leaving no protections whatsoever in year six. Paramount argued that the five-year term was a reasonable outcome, given the fast-changing nature of the film and TV business. He noted that editorial issues were not part of the states’ complaint, and that the board’s independence is limited, given that Paramount will appoint the members.
The states likewise argued that the board does not raise First Amendment concerns, arguing that the deal will not put the court in the position of adjudicating news judgments. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered the parties last week to respond to Booker’s letter. The court also received amicus briefs from members of the Block the Merger coalition and from the League of United Latin American Citizens, both of which raised a series of objections to the deal.
Martinez-Olguin has yet to sign off on the consent decree, and said last week that she would issue a ruling in “due course.”
Extract — continue reading at the source.
