Paramount Skydance announced on August 14 that it has satisfied every regulatory condition required to close its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, a set of clearances the company says now spans 68 countries [1]. The list of jurisdictions that have signed off includes the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Brazil, China, the COMESA competition bloc covering eastern and southern Africa, and the U.S. Department of Justice [1]. Mexico, which announced its clearance on August 14, was the most recent to approve [1].
By the company's own account, the deal is ready to close. "Paramount and WBD could and would close today and begin delivering the benefits recognized by regulators around the world, theater owners and others across the industry but for the actions of just 12 state attorneys general," the announcement states [1].
Those 12 state attorneys general, led by California, are the single obstacle the company names. "Despite this overwhelming global consensus, the litigation brought by the State of California and 11 other State AGs remains the final obstacle to completing a combination that will create a stronger competitor," chief executive David Ellison said [1].
The shape of the fight is worth stating plainly. On one side is a company that has collected antitrust and foreign-investment clearances across most of the world, including from the federal enforcers who would ordinarily have the loudest voice in a media merger of this size. On the other is a coalition of state prosecutors pursuing the case in court. What began as a global regulatory review has narrowed to a domestic lawsuit, and that lawsuit is now the whole story of whether one owner ends up controlling both Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery.
The company frames the state suit as an outlier against a worldwide consensus. The attorneys general, for their part, are litigating the opposite view. This piece reports what Paramount Skydance has said and what it has documented as cleared; the merits of the state case will be settled where the parties have put them, in front of a judge.
