California Attorney General cancels Paramount Skydance settlement meeting citing 'lack of good faith' after confidentiality breach, as multi-state merger lawsuit heads toward trial
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on 24 August 2026 canceled a scheduled meeting with Paramount Skydance representatives, citing a 'lack of good faith' after Paramount allegedly leaked the substance of earlier settlement discussions and, Bonta said, misrepresented what had been discussed. The cancellation halts what had appeared to be an early negotiation track for resolving the multi-state antitrust lawsuit filed in July 2026 to block Paramount Skydance's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). Bonta is leading a coalition of 12 state attorneys general in suing to block the deal, which they allege would create a media company controlling a disproportionate share of film and basic TV programming. The acquisition is valued at roughly $110 billion. Paramount has agreed to delay completing the WBD acquisition while the case heads toward trial. Bonta told CNBC last week he was ready to negotiate but required 'robust structural remedies' as the price of settlement. He has said the focus of the lawsuit is not on streaming, CNN, or foreign regulatory scrutiny. Warner Bros. Discovery declined to comment on the cancellation, while Paramount said it shared Bonta's concerns about the leaks, had assured his office that it was not their source, and remained ready to continue good faith discussions. The next development to watch is whether Paramount takes steps to restore the confidentiality of the settlement track or whether the matter proceeds directly toward a trial date.
Why this matters
The breakdown of the preliminary settlement track makes a full antitrust trial significantly more likely, which prolongs the period of regulatory uncertainty hanging over the $110bn deal. The confidentiality breach allegation is legally important in itself: if Bonta can demonstrate that Paramount leaked and mischaracterised the substance of without-prejudice discussions, it could affect the admissibility and use of those communications in subsequent proceedings, as well as the parties' negotiating credibility. For the deal, the delay itself creates commercial risk: both Paramount and WBD are operating in rapidly changing streaming and advertising markets where prolonged ownership uncertainty has strategic costs.
On the Ground
The legal work on a multi-state antitrust challenge of this scale involves antitrust litigation teams coordinating across multiple state jurisdictions, as well as M&A regulatory counsel advising on the merger review process and any structural remedies that might satisfy the state AGs. The confidentiality breach question may engage civil procedure specialists on the question of without-prejudice privilege and its scope under applicable US rules, though the UK nexus here is the deal's significance to global media M&A practice and to London firms with US antitrust partnerships. Trainees on a multi-jurisdictional antitrust matter would be preparing disclosure review logs, compiling regulatory chronologies, and assisting with local counsel instruction letters across participating states.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What structural remedies might a state antitrust authority require to resolve its concerns about a large media merger, and how would you advise a client on whether to accept them?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved