Paramount And State AGs Begin Preliminary Talks Ahead Of October Settlement Meetings

They’re talking! Or are they? And what are they actually talking about? Does everyone need to chill out?

Paramount and state Attorneys General are talking, we are told. However, the discussions that are occurring over coming to a deal in the battle over Paramount’s $111 billion merger with Warner Bros Discovery are far from advanced.

In fact, sources tell us, the conversations that are occurring between David Ellison’s team and California AG Rob Bonta’s crew are centered on laying out the agenda for their already scheduled mid-October court ordered settlement discussions. “This is part of the process before you get the principals onboard, it’s pretty straightforward,” declares an individual with direct knowledge of the state of affairs. “The end is not nigh.”

Earlier this week, a federal judge made it official and ordered Para, WBD and the AGs to appear for a two-day settlement conference October 14-15 in a San Francisco courtroom.

Core to the discussions will be scenarios like Paramount potentially operating the film and TV studios of Paramount and Warner Bros. separately, at least for a period of time after the close. Bonta has said a “behavioral remedy” like the company agreeing to release at least 30 films a year, will not satisfy the plaintiffs. Along with studio consolidation, cable network concentration is a key part of the states’ complaint, with speculation centering on some way of moving some of the 50-plus cable networks out of the combined portfolio to avoid running afoul of antitrust limits.

Eyebrows (and hopes) were raised late Friday about a potential resolution of Paramount’s legally waylaid WBD merger. The Wall Street Journal reported tonight that Paramount is in “advanced talks” with California’s Bonta over a settlement of the antitrust suit being brought by the Golden State AG and 11 other states.

Shares in Paramount, which are down 23% in 2026 to date amid mounting uncertainty about the fate of the merger, jumped 5% in after-hours trading. WBD stock, which is also underwater for the year, rose 6% after hours.

After Donald Trump’s DOJ and other major jurisdictions approved the mega-merger with no conditions, the dozen Attorneys General filed a much-expected antitrust suit against Para and WBD on July 13. The case, set to go to trial on March 2, 2027, has seen an explosion of threats that Paramount would move to a red state , “blackmail” accusations by Bonta and a media war in the court of public opinion. It could also cost Ellison and his Oracle founding father Larry Ellison some sweet cash with a $7 million a day ticking fee set to WBD shareholders to start on October 1.

In that context, talk of advanced talks is just another piece of that PR puzzle.

“I get why some want this to look bigger than it is, there’s a lot of pressure here,” an insider notes. “This is too big, too much on the line for anyone to rush a deal,” the source added. “Hold your horses. No one wants to waste anyone’s time.”

As with initial talks last month, it is mid-level staff that are in communication as the brass stay above the fray, as it is, we hear.

Paramount had a blunt “no comment” on whether negotiations with the AGs were going on and what the status of them are at present.

Having called out Paramount previously for alleged leaks that scuttled the last set of behind the scenes talks, Rob Bonta’s office today were 100% by the book. “Potential settlement talks are confidential,” a spokesperson for the CA AG told Deadline In the non-answer answer they added: “We cannot confirm or deny whether settlement talks are occurring or their alleged substance.”

While there appeared to be reason for optimism (mild as it is at this stage) there are many caveats to consider — and not just because there is a big Paramount+ streamed UFC fight out of L.A. this Yom Kipper weekend.

The latest word of discussions follows an ill-fated sequence in August. Bonta canceled negotiations hours before they were set to take place, accusing Ellison of “playing games” ahead of those meetings. “Not only did Paramount leak the alleged substance of settlement discussions, but they misrepresented these discussions, demonstrating a lack of good faith,” Bonta said at the time.

Even as recently as Thursday of this week, when Bonta made an appearance at the Atlantic Festival in New York, the top cop of California said the fate of the deal “lies at the feet” of Ellison and the Paramount team.

The leverage has been heavily on the side of the AGs since a string of rulings in the case by a federal judge favored the plaintiffs. Even when it came to setting a date for the antitrust trial, the judge landed on early March, which was a lot closer to the AGs’ preference of April than to Paramount’s stated desire for November.

Despite momentum in the case, high-profile Democrats in California, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, have publicly pressured Bonta multiple times to settle the case. The ambitious Newsom and reelection fighting Bass fear damage to the industry, L.A. and the state if the deal remains pending for several months. At the same time, of course, a damning August report delivered to L.A. County from the region’s Department of Economic Opportunity says the $80 billion debt ladened merger will likely cause the loss of thousands of jobs, adding to the pain for a region already facing a downturn in production and other headwinds.

The job loss and economic pain could be much greater if Paramount makes good on their threat to leave L.A.,say a September 10 report to the County from the Economic Development Corporation. On the flip side, that same leaked EDC report, which Paramount commissioned, also told the powerful Board of Supervisors that ailing Hollywood wold be boomtown if ParaBros went though with jobs and productions galore

As well, the ParaBros court calendar is looking pretty full even before those official settlement talks of next month and the spring 2027 trial. A hearing will be held next week in Oakland on Paramount’s request for a $1.88 billion bond from the plaintiffs to cover “extraordinary losses” the company anticipates due to having to pay those pricey ticking fee during litigation. On September 25, the blue state AGs have to respond to a motion from red state Iowa and Montana to take the validity of the antitrust suit to the Supreme Court