“We, respectfully, didn’t think that the United States DOJ did an adequate review and we thought we needed to step in to make sure we were protecting consumers,” California AG Rob Bonta said of a lawsuit that’s rocking Hollywood after 12 Attorneys General sued to block Paramount’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

He was dinging the Department of Justice, which blessed the deal in June. “When we looked at, it was and continues to be, a black-and-white, bread-and-butter case. We looked at the facts. We looked at the law. We did our own independent assessment of the law, the facts, and we decided that there was an antitrust violation in three separate markets we set forth in our complaint,” he told The Atlantic Festival in New York on a panel of State Attorneys General.

“We thought we needed to step in to make sure we were protecting consumers, who are paying satellite bills and cable bills, consumers who are trying to enjoy one of the joys of life and go to the movies, and make sure that those costs aren’t raised, make sure that jobs are protected, make sure that those choices are in competition in the marketplace,” he said, appearing alongside New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Pennsylvania Attorney General David Sunday. They discussed how AGs have become an increasingly critical battle line in defending consumers, stepping up in antitrust in particular across sectors with recent high profile case against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, Nexstar-Tegna and Meta.

The Paramount-WBD suit is set for trial in March. The AGs secured a temporary restraining order early on and Paramount agreed to delay closing the deal until next summer. The court has ordered two days of settlement talks in October but the sides are far apart. Absent an agreement, Ellison this week escalated threats to pull Paramount out of California.

“There have been threats, those aren’t new. The continued threats to leave the state of California. I can’t comment on what a company decides to do, especially a company that has professed a commitment to Hollywood and to California. If they make that choice to leave, that is their choice and their choice alone. They own it. It lies at their feet.,” Bonta said.

“We have a job to enforce the law without fear, without favor, and at the same time, we are always open to coming to the table if it is in good faith and sincere, and we will always explore an opportunity to get the results that we want based on our evaluation of the case at the table.”

Asked about Paramount’s insistence that plaintiffs post a $1.88 billion bond, Bonta said: “What I think that is they don’t have any right to that. In our view. I think that’s buyer’s remorse … There was no part of the agreement [with the court] that involved the states posting a bond.” The judge will rule on a bond at a Sept. 24 hearing.

“They’re trying to rewrite an agreement, a commitment, a promise that they already made, and we feel very confident going into a hearing … The judge will decide.”

The bond would cover a ticking fee Par agreed to pay Warner as a term of the merger. At $7 million a day starting Oct. 1 if the merger had not closed. That would comes to $1.88 billion by early June. Either side can walk away at that point. Paramount would owe WBD a $7 billion termination fee in that case instead of the ticking fee.

The DOJ filed a brief to the case docket this week supporting Paramount’s right to a bond. Paramount insists it is statutorily entitled to a bond. It has defended the merger, announced in February, as good for the entertainment industry and committed to making 30 films a year between the two studios.

Get our Breaking News Alerts and Keep your inbox happy.

Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, and don't get your facts wrong.

Δdocument.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );