-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Two of the five biggest studios in America want to become one. If Paramount is allowed to absorb Warner Bros. Discovery, a single company will control roughly a third of the movies that reach theaters and roughly a third of basic cable programming, along with two of the largest streaming services and two national news organizations, CBS News and CNN, under the same roof.
That outcome moved closer on Monday, as reports emerged that Paramount had reached a settlement deal with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who leads the 12 states suing to block the deal. The Ellisons, the family that controls Paramount, had been pressing for a settlement without serious structural reforms — one that would allow the merger to progress based mostly on empty, unenforceable promises.
Before that happens, someone should account for who has been paying for all of it. Latinos are 19% of the U.S. population and bought 29% of all movie tickets sold in 2020. We attend theaters more often than any other group, and Latino households command more than $4 trillion in purchasing power.
Black Americans are about 14% of the population and delivered 21% of the opening weekend box office revenue for major theatrical releases in 2024. They accounted for 22% of all minutes viewed across major streaming platforms. They consumed an average of 84 hours of media a week that year, against roughly 72 hours for the country as a whole, and their buying power is on pace to pass $2 trillion.
Those are not diversity statistics. They are customer statistics, and they describe the two audiences that carry this industry’s margins.
Now look at what those customers receive in return. In 2025, Black actors held 6.5% of lead roles in top theatrical films. Latino actors held less than 3%. White actors took 76.9%. Across 1,300 top-grossing films, Latino characters filled 5% of speaking roles, and nearly 44% of those films contained no Latino speaking character at all. People of color are 45.2% of this country and 23.1% of its film leaders, and in 2025 they lost ground in streaming in every single employment category the industry measures.
Here is the part that should interest anyone who cares about how markets are supposed to work. In that same year, films with casts between 41% and 50% people of color earned the highest median box office of any group.
A company operating in a competitive market cannot neglect its highest-earning market for long. Leaving money on the table is how you lose to the competitor who picks it up. But a company that controls a third of theatrical distribution and a third of cable programming does not face that discipline. It can misread its own customers indefinitely, because those customers have few alternatives for their entertainment dollars.
That is the economic case against this merger, and it is the same case the attorneys general should have made in court. Every studio absorbed by a rival is one fewer buyer for a script, one fewer employer for a crew, one fewer distributor willing to bet on a story that does not fit in somebody’s franchise plan. Fewer buyers means lower pay, fewer projects and less leverage for everyone selling into that market.
That economic mechanism does not check anyone’s background before it operates. It simply affects the people with the least leverage first, and they are the last to recover. In Los Angeles County, where nearly half of the population is Latino, that means the grips, electricians, drivers, set builders and caterers, and the small vendors who supply them.
This is not a forecast. Warner Bros. Discovery already ran the experiment after its 2022 merger, shelving a finished $90 million film with an Afro-Latino lead, canceling a comedy about a Dominican immigrant family five weeks into its run despite strong viewership, and clearing out Black-led series across the following two years. Paramount won federal approval for its own merger partly by dismantling its diversity programs, then laid off roughly 2,000 people within months of closing the deal.
Approval first, erasure second. Every time.
So when Paramount offers commitments to attorneys general and the public, weigh them against the record. Comcast made commitments to win NBCUniversal and negotiated in good faith with national civil rights organizations, and independent channels launched as a result. The investment that real ownership requires did not follow. Paper outlasts everyone who signed the agreement.
A dozen state attorneys general sued to stop the Paramount deal, and they were right to do so. In July a federal judge froze the merger, writing that on market share alone she could presume it likely violates antitrust law. The companies then agreed to stand still until the court rules or until June 1, 2027. With a trial set to begin on March 2, Paramount demanded a settlement by Oct. 1 and threatened to move its operations out of California if it did not get one, a move California’s attorney general accurately called blackmail.
If the reports are accurate, the Ellisons used that pressure to push for a settlement built on behavioral concessions that are not worth the paper on which they are written — and now there may be a consent decree as a result that includes no protections for Black and Latino constituents of Hollywood.
Concessions that depend on the future goodwill of the merged company will not protect the workers and audiences the attorneys general sought to protect. Bonta has said publicly that pledges like releasing a set number of films each year are precisely the type of behavioral remedies that are “typically not enforceable in the way that we like.” He was correct.
I am not asking these companies for a seat at the table. I am asking that the table not be cut in half.
Fewer buyers means fewer stories, fewer jobs and fewer of us in the rooms where both get decided. The law already provides the remedy. The merger should not proceed.
Juan Proaño is the chief executive of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation’s oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that the proposed merger would give one company excessive control over theatrical distribution, basic-cable programming, streaming and national news, weakening the competitive pressure that is supposed to encourage studios to serve audiences and invest in varied programming.
It contends that Black and Latino audiences contribute disproportionately to Hollywood’s revenues while remaining underrepresented on screen and behind the camera. The piece therefore treats the merger as both an antitrust concern and a civil-rights issue, warning that further consolidation could reduce opportunities for creators and audiences of color.
The article maintains that eliminating a major studio would mean fewer buyers for scripts, fewer employers for crews and less bargaining power for workers. That concern is consistent with the Writers Guild of America’s lawsuit, which argues that the combined company would become the largest buyer and employer of writers, giving it greater incentive and ability to suppress compensation and reduce programming.[2][3]
It further argues that consolidation would disproportionately affect workers and small vendors in Los Angeles, including production crews and businesses that depend on studio activity. A Los Angeles County report identified approximately 2,495 local jobs and about 6,000 jobs globally as potentially exposed to overlapping functions created by the merger.[1]
Drawing on previous corporate transactions, the article contends that voluntary promises are unreliable safeguards against layoffs, canceled projects and the disappearance of diversity initiatives. It therefore favors blocking the merger rather than relying primarily on behavioral commitments such as release quotas or promises to operate studios separately.
Finally, the piece argues that any settlement should include enforceable structural changes, such as divestitures or separate ownership, rather than pledges dependent on the future goodwill of the merged company. California officials have likewise said that a resolution would require “robust structural remedies,” while some states have sought additional protections for workers.[5][6]
Different views on the topic
The U.S. Justice Department reached the opposite conclusion after investigating the transaction, saying it was unlikely to harm competition or consumers in streaming, linear television, or theatrical film production and distribution. The department said the combination could increase competition across the broader media ecosystem and benefit consumers and workers.[8]
Paramount and its supporters argue that scale is necessary to compete with much larger technology-backed platforms. In this view, combining Paramount+, HBO Max and Pluto would create a stronger streaming alternative, expand access to content and give audiences another substantial competitor rather than simply reducing choice.[7][9]
Federal regulators also concluded that competition in film production and theatrical distribution remains extensive, producing substantial output and a broad range of offerings. The Associated Press reported that regulators found no likely competitive harm in those markets and cited competition for live programming as evidence that the merger would not undermine linear television.[11]
Supporters contend that the combined company’s greater financial capacity could sustain investment in content, streaming technology and theatrical releases during a period of intense industry pressure. A bipartisan economic report by former Obama economic adviser Robert Wolf and former Trump adviser Stephen Moore argued that the merger could strengthen competition, support jobs and generate efficiencies that could be reinvested in production.[12]
The companies also maintain that the transaction would create more opportunities for creative talent and labor by producing a better-capitalized entertainment company. Paramount has pointed to regulatory clearances in numerous jurisdictions as evidence that independent competition authorities generally view the deal as pro-consumer and pro-competitive.[10]
Some Hollywood labor organizations have pursued a more conditional position than outright opposition. The Directors Guild of America and IATSE have sought protections requiring the Paramount and Warner Bros. film units to remain separate divisions, suggesting that negotiated safeguards could address concerns about employment, production and creative competition without necessarily preventing the transaction.[4]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Greenline Housing Foundation has become something of a “first aid kit” for Eaton fire survivors, offering financial services that range from temporary housing grants to land banking that have helped some families fund their paths back home.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
