This sounds like more of a wishful thinking deal-in-principle.
Ellison is promising to make a vast number of cinematic releases (30 per year) but the states are looking for concrete structural requirements, such as to sell off holdings where there would be excessive concentration.
Here is The Hollywood Reporter’s take.
Ellison, for his part, promised to release a minimum of 30 films per year theatrically, though many in the industry remain skeptical about how long the company can sustain that level of production.
Bonta had maintained he’ll only accept structural remedies, which typically involve companies selling off parts of the combined business. It’s believed a sticking point for the states in any settlement involved Paramount operating the two studios as independent businesses and selling off parts of its cable business. For Ellison, parting ways with CNN was a no-go.
Still, the specifics of a deal are still TBA, including any potential divestitures.
Yeah, I fully expect the final “deal” to be rather toothless.
It may be that one won’t be reached at all.
The states may be dragging this out until after the November midterms to see if they may have more leverage in DC later.
Looks like the news just broke - the terms can be found here.
Ooh, the states have gone for a number of conditions that will crystallize into requirements for divestments if Paramount fails to meet its expansive promises.
…Which the states likely believe will happen.
It’s a smart way for both sides to kick the problem downstream a bit until there’s a new administration.
It’s also a way for David Ellison to lock himself legally into doing things he personally wants to do (massive amounts of scripted production) while holding off his father and other investors.
