In July, twelve state attorneys general sued to stop Paramount Skydance from buying Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) in a $110 billion deal. California’s Rob Bonta is leading that coalition, and the numbers his office put forth are hard to shrug off. Together, the two companies would control roughly 27% of wide-release theatrical film distribution and about 27% of basic cable licensing. After the merger, just three studios would remain responsible for controlling roughly three quarters of the films that actually play in theaters. For critics of the deal, that’s a sign the market is becoming too concentrated. At first glance, that sounds like exactly the kind of concentration that antitrust law is supposed to address. But the Justice Department reviewed those same numbers and cleared the deal in June with regulators outside the U.S. approving it as well. The states aren’t arguing that the DOJ got the math wrong—they’re arguing that the math alone shouldn’t decide the case. Free Press, one of the groups behind the state suit, has made clear that its concerns go beyond box office shares. Its statement points to David Ellison and his father Larry, who are both aligned with the Trump administration. It also cites Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who publicly welcomed a change in ownership at CNN. The concern isn’t just about market shares: it’s about who ends up in charge of a major news network. Interestingly, David Ellison is making a similar accusation from the opposite side. In a New York Times op-ed, he argued that the states’ lawsuit isn’t really about antitrust. He says it’s political retaliation tied to CNN. Bonta rejects that completely and has called it a disinformation campaign meant to distract from the actual case. So, both sides keep coming back to CNN. They just disagree over why it matters. You can see that same split among the people who’d actually be affected. Cinema United, the theater owners’ group, praised the lawsuit the day it was filed. The group was worried about fewer studios controlling what gets released. Cinemark went the other way and pushed for California to settle instead. The Writers Guild never wavered and stayed opposed. All three groups have real money riding on the outcome, yet they disagree on whether blocking the deal would actually help them. That’s not what a straightforward antitrust case usually looks like. And, any hope of a quiet resolution fell apart recently. Settlement talks between Bonta’s office and Paramount were scheduled for late August, but Bonta canceled them after accusing Paramount of leaking details of an earlier meeting and misrepresenting what they discussed. “Paramount did not maintain the confidentiality of that meeting,” he said in a statement. He added he’d meet with them again once the company “stops playing games.” The case is now on track for a jury trial instead of heading toward a deal. Underneath all of that sits a completely separate fight over the deal itself. WBD has already agreed to sell its studio and streaming business to Netflix for $27.75 a share. Paramount is offering $30 per share in cash for the entire company. You would think the higher number would settle it—it hasn’t. Paramount sued WBD’s board and demanded access to the financial information behind its decision to back Netflix’s bid instead. A Delaware judge rejected Paramount’s request to fast-track the case. The court found that Paramount hadn’t shown the kind of immediate harm needed to justify moving faster. Paramount also launched a proxy fight to replace WBD’s board members. The company is betting that a new board would be more willing to revisit the deal. So, there are really three fights happening under one $110 billion price tag: a multistate antitrust suit that’s effectively working around a federal clearance; a Delaware lawsuit over what WBD told its shareholders about the Netflix deal; and a boardroom proxy fight sitting underneath both. None of these run on their own. Settle the California case, and the deal moves closer to closing on Paramount’s terms. Win in Delaware, and Paramount’s offer starts to look stronger than Netflix’s no matter what happens in California. Move one piece and the value of winning the other two changes with it. None of this means the antitrust concern is fake. A company controlling a third of theatrical film distribution and a third of basic cable presents a real concern. A federal green light doesn’t erase that. But treating this merger as a straightforward market-share dispute misses what’s actually driving it toward a March 2027 trial. There is a fight over who controls a major news network. At the same time, there is a corporate takeover battle that neither side is willing to lose. Whether the outcome is decided in a courtroom or a boardroom, both fights are shaping the deal’s future. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Isha Mallareddy
Flock Cameras have popped up on roads all across American communities. Wikimedia Commons The frequency of Flock Inc.’s cameras in American cities has grown exponentially since the tech giant’s founding in 2017. But unlike most traffic cameras, they record far more than just a vehicle’s license plate. Flock cameras with integrated AI are largely placed on the sides of roads, performing billions of vehicle scans on a monthly basis. Flock claims to record the license plates and models of these vehicles, storing the information in a massive database, in order to help police resolve traffic violations and escaped criminals. However, this vast database of vehicles consists very sparsely of criminals or rowdy drivers, contains frequent mistakes in matching license plates to the correct state, and, most controversially, is subject to minimal regulation when it is shared with law enforcement agencies, as reported by the ACLU. Year after year, Americans have traded more of their privacy and liberties with the goal of purchasing more security, but the result has been a permanent loss of both. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, fears of more terrorism prompted the swift passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. But the law’s violation of the constitution has diminished any patriotism it has inspired. It allows the FBI to seize personal data including phone records and internet searches of an individual without a prior court order, and requires private banks and financial institutions to perform intrusive surveillance on their own customers’ transactions. Despite criticism of the law as a violation of the fourth amendment, it has set a dangerous precedent for expanded tyranny, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Draconian lockdowns that banned people from most activities outside their homes were not only economically devastating to small businesses, but required an even larger surveillance state. With a nationwide network of Flock’s surveillance cameras, enforcing this tyranny would only become easier due to their ability to track the movement of vehicles and match them to their drivers. And, during the next major crisis that is used as an excuse to curtail our liberties, governments will surely use this new technology to enforce their tyranny. As a result, a bipartisan push to restrict the growth has reached both halls of congress. Representatives Thomas Massie (Republican, Kentucky) and Ro Khanna (Democratic, California) have both prepared legislation to end government contracts with Flock. Similarly, as public backlash against Flock cameras has skyrocketed last month, numerous cities are now pausing the construction of or altogether ending their contracts with Flock. But merely halting new governmental tyranny is just the first step to restoring respect for our Constitution and Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers envisioned.
By Edward Kim
(Image Source: Gavin Allanwood, Unsplash) On September 2nd, two of the largest school districts banned generative AI, pulling it out of the hands of young students. While the subject converged in some ways, the application of the policy differs. It is yet to be seen which approach will prove to be more or less effective. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Public Schools Chancellor Kamar H. Samuels announced a new policy on AI in public schools. The policy is “a moratorium on student-facing generative artificial intelligence (AI) in grades 2K–8, with limited use in high schools…”. This means Large Language Models (LLMs), such as Claude or ChatGPT, are banned for student use up until 8th grade. The temporary ban will reach approximately 600,000 students, or about two-thirds of NYC public school enrollment. For high-school students and above, generative AI is allowed, but is subject to limitations and student completion of two 45-minute AI literacy modules. The one-year ban will be used to evaluate AI use in schools through five limited pilots that the city will run at the high school level. “The tech industry wants us to believe that A.I.-powered early education is not only inevitable, but necessary. We do not see it that way,” said NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani in a Wednesday statement, as reported by Anna Merod who reports on news at the K-12 Dive. Los Angeles On Wednesday, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) held its first meeting of the Generative AI Ad Hoc Committee. In this meeting, LAUSD announced a new policy, which is the banning of generative AI in public schools for all grade levels. Unlike the NYC ban, the scope of the Los Angeles policy is broader. The ban took effect when school opened and went largely unpublicized until the September 2nd meeting where it surprised board members and parents in attendance. Board member Kelly Gonez said that “I, even as a board member,” was “under the expectation that we were still operating under last year’s policy.” Apparently, senior administrators had implemented the policy de facto, which was brought to light in the committee meeting that happened on Wednesday. Unlike NYC’s more detailed roll-out, the application of this policy seems less coordinated. Another committee board member, Nick Melvoin, stated “if the policy is we’re not going to allow students [to] use generative AI for the meantime, then we should publicize that.” Similar to NYC’s ban, LAUSD will still allow non-generative AI. This means AI tools that do not generate new content or writing, such as those that help with reading and diction, or speech recognition. Going Forward Two of the largest school districts just banned generative AI use in schools. NYC is taking a more graduated approach, banning the tool for grades up to 8th grade, while LAUSD is banning it across all grades. Both districts are only using a temporary, one-year ban, meaning that the policy will be revisited next year. NYC has used a more detailed approach thus far because they have established pilot programs, albeit limited, for certain students to still use vetted generative AI tools. This collection of data could prove to be useful when analyzing future policy moves, either to argue for AI adoption or greater restrictions. LAUSD, on the other hand, has taken a less precise approach, but one that could be seen as stronger among anti-AI advocates. Given that NYC and LAUSD are the largest school districts in the country, their similar yet differing approaches may serve as a catalyst for other districts nationwide to follow. As national debates regarding the role of AI in society come to the fore, this development is one worth watching closely.
By Vaibhav Sinha
Follow Us