Oregon’s Attorney General gets a win in the Paramount-Warner Bros. settlement. Did taxpayers?
On Monday, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield notched a big win for himself as it was announced that he and 11 other state attorneys general reached a settlement deal with Paramount in their antitrust lawsuit against the company. The settlement will allow for Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. to move forward. But the entire lawsuit leaves us with one question still unanswered:
Did Dan Rayfield have nothing better to do?
In February, Paramount Skydance announced it was purchasing Warner Bros. Discovery for $110 billion. The merger announcement came after Paramount’s months-long bidding war with Netflix for the movie studio. In June, the deal was approved by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, but a month later, AG Rayfield and 11 other state attorneys general sued Paramount for antitrust violations, claiming the merger would create undue influence over film exhibitors and television providers.
On Monday, a settlement between Paramount and the 12 AGs was reached. Paramount agreed to five-year term which includes:
- Release of 30 films per year, including 20 wide releases in the first two years of the deal;
- Release of 32 films per year, with 21 wide releases in years three through five of the deal;
- Increase U.S. film production by at least $1.5 billion above its 2025 U.S. spending levels over the five years of the deal;
- Operate an annual $5 million fund to acquire independent films;
- Commit $47.5 million to a five-year Workforce Fund for training and career development for workers displaced by the merger;
- Negotiate Paramount’s basic cable channels with television providers separately from Warner Bros. basic cable channels for five years;
- Continue to offer a free streaming service for the length of the deal;
- Establish a News Editorial Independence Board to help protect editorial independence at CNN and CBS; and
- Appoint an independent monitor to oversee compliance with the agreement.
In a statement, AG Rayfield described the settlement as “a win for Oregon workers and consumers.”
But is it actually?
There is no discernible benefit to Oregon taxpayers in exchange for the tax dollars spent on litigating the case. The AG claims the settlement “keeps real competition in place, ensures that productions will continue, and ensures journalistic independence.” The problem is it doesn’t actually do any of that apart from the production piece, and it remains to be seen whether the production will actually be quality.
The merger was proposed to begin with because Warner Bros. was struggling to stay competitive and looked to be splitting in two if it hadn’t been acquired by another company. Paramount wanted to bolster the offering of movies and shows on its streaming platform to stay competitive with other platforms. That’s why the company was so persistent in trying to outbid Netflix.
The AGs claim there would have been undue influence in the cable industry if Paramount and Warner Bros. had negotiated their base channels together, but cable television is a dying industry. The settlement plays into the hands of the cable companies, which themselves nearly constitute a monopoly.
Then there’s the News Editorial Independence Board. The board is a reaction to the hiring of Bari Weiss in October 2025 as Editor-in-Chief of CBS News. There has been backlash among progressives and journalists to Weiss making staff changes at 60 Minutes and reforming the shows’ coverage to have higher veracity in stories. Essentially, the 12 AGs are unhappy with what is happening at CBS News and are using their lawsuit to create the News Editorial Independence Board at Paramount. They are using their power to control speech they disagree with all in the name of freedom of speech.
But what’s the benefit to Oregonians? If this pans out the way AG Rayfield claims it will, Oregonians will now have competitive prices for Paramount+ and movie theater tickets. Not affordable prices, but competitive prices for services that are nowhere near essential.
Oregonians face major problems that a quality attorney general could deliver justice on. Dan Rayfield should be spending his time and resources addressing those. But at least he got his political win. Meanwhile, Oregonians will continue to suffer from unaddressed injustice.