The EU Counted A24 and Amazon MGM as Paramount-WBD Competitors. The Twelve State AGs Don't. That Gap Is Now the Case.

Antitrust law is fundamentally a question about market definition. The European Commission answered that question for its jurisdiction this morning, and its answer is a problem for the twelve state attorneys general. The EU's competitive analysis found the relevant market for theatrical film distribution includes not just the five major Hollywood studios but also Amazon MGM, A24, Lionsgate, and European studios — a broader definition that leads to a different conclusion: even after combining Paramount and WBD, enough alternative competitors remain. The state AGs are using a narrower definition, focusing on the Big Five majors dropping to four, arguing this meaningfully reduces competition in ways that harm consumers. The EU's definition is not automatically correct under American antitrust law. The state AGs will argue A24 and Lionsgate do not compete for the highest-budget, widest-release theatrical films. That argument has doctrinal support. But it has to survive a summer in which Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey — a non-franchise original film — opened to $257 million globally. The ten-year ban on a new Universal distribution deal in Europe is the tell: the EU found one specific concern and addressed it with a targeted remedy, clearing everything else. The states' complaint argues the merger itself is the harm — harder to make when 65 jurisdictions have found the transaction acceptable. The preliminary injunction hearing is in late August. The states no longer have the ability to argue their theory of competitive harm is the only reasonable one. Related: Europe Said Yes. California Said Wait. and Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey Opens to $257M — and Changes Paramount's Antitrust Argument