California Attorney General Rob Bonta faces a tight deadline. He must soon decide whether his office will sue to block Paramount’s proposed $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. The move could reshape Hollywood. It also signals something larger about how one state confronts concentrated power in entertainment and technology.
Bonta told Reuters he views corporate promises to fix antitrust worries as more credible when backed by the threat of divestitures. “We’re not a lot of time left before we will need to act if that’s what we decide to do,” he said in an interview. His office has heard from Hollywood workers. Their concerns raised “even more red flags.” Fewer productions. Lower wages. The combination of two major studios triggers real fear.
State Ambition Meets Industry Resistance
Bonta sees a central role for California in protecting jobs. “We think we have a central role in being able to protect jobs in Hollywood with respect to the Paramount-Warner Brothers proposed merger,” he told Reuters. Antitrust enforcers challenge deals that harm competition. That includes competition for specialized labor. Europe plans a decision by early July. The U.S. Department of Justice moves soon. Time presses.
Yet this isn’t just about one media merger. California has spent years testing the edges of antitrust law against technology giants. The state joined federal cases against Google. It pursued its own actions. And in April 2026, a major legislative effort collapsed. Sen. Scott Wiener’s bill, known as the BASED Act, targeted self-preferencing by platforms worth over $1 trillion with at least 100 million U.S. users. It aimed to stop Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta from promoting their own products in search results, using third-party data for competing services or setting rules that squeeze smaller players.
The Senate committee deadlocked 3-3. The measure died there. Wiener framed it as essential. “Big Tech has immense power over every aspect of our lives,” he said afterward. “We all deserve an internet that is free from interference by giant monopolistic corporations.” Startups backed it. Y Combinator stood with consumer advocates. They warned the stakes now reach artificial intelligence. Access to app stores, search and feeds decides which new companies live or die.
Opposition proved fierce. Tech companies and business groups called the language vague. They predicted costly lawsuits and higher prices. Apple warned it echoed Europe’s Digital Markets Act, which the company says stifled innovation, weakened experiences and created privacy risks. The giants spent heavily on lobbying and advertising. Bloomberg reported they formed a unified front. Their home-state influence carried the day. Bloomberg detailed how Apple and Google crushed the effort to help smaller rivals.
But. The fight continues. Another bill, Assembly Bill 1776, advances. It seeks to expand state antitrust rules. Separately, California’s Law Revision Commission released a tentative recommendation in 2025 on single-firm conduct. It proposes going beyond federal standards. Comments closed in early 2026. If adopted, the changes would create divergent legal standards. Other states might follow. Tech Policy Press noted this could position states to lead as federal action slows and courts favor behavioral fixes over structural ones.
Bonta’s office already scores wins against Amazon. In April 2026, a San Francisco Superior Court denied the company’s motion for summary judgment in a price-fixing case. California alleges Amazon pressures brands like Levi’s and Hanes to raise prices elsewhere. It uses vendors as middlemen. The goal? Protect margins. Avoid real competition. The court ruled California’s antitrust laws apply. Trial looms for January 2027. California Attorney General’s Office called it a significant defeat for Amazon’s defense.
The New York Times obtained unsealed filings. They show Amazon directed vendors to contact rivals and push price hikes. So Amazon wouldn’t have to compete on price itself. The New York Times reported the details. Amazon dismisses the evidence. It says it looks forward to responding in full.
Google faces its own pressure in California courts. A $700 million settlement in the Google Play Store antitrust litigation nears final approval. A federal judge in the Northern District criticized class counsel’s $85 million fee request. He called the claimed hours “grotesquely bloated.” Still, the deal moves ahead. It reflects the state’s persistent role even when federal outcomes soften. Axios covered the legislative stall. It highlighted how difficult it remains to turn concern into binding rules. Axios described the deadlock as part of a national impasse.
Paramount pushes back on the merger scrutiny. A spokesperson said the company has “every economic incentive” to expand production after the deal. That growth would boost streaming subscriptions. CEO David Ellison vowed 30 movies per year in theaters. Theatrical releases market the streaming catalog. The company made that point in recent court papers. Behavioral promises alone don’t satisfy Bonta. He wonders aloud whether they need structural backup. “Can they be part of a solution? Maybe,” he said. “Should they be backed, if they’re even pursued at all, by a structural remedy consequence if they’re not adequate? I’d say so. That’s kind of the way I’m thinking about it.”
His stance fits a pattern. California doesn’t wait for Washington. Federal cases against Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta grind on. Some produce modest remedies. Others stall. Judges deny dismissals. Juries deliver mixed verdicts. Yet the state writes its own script. It joins suits. It files independent ones. It tries legislation. When bills fail, it turns to regulators and courts.
And the Hollywood anxiety feels immediate. Movie theater owners warn of less competition. Actors and crew see threats to wages and work. Bonta listens. He connects labor harm to antitrust harm. That link grows more common in enforcement circles. It gives states new arguments. It gives attorneys general like Bonta fresh leverage.
The Paramount decision will come soon. Whatever Bonta chooses, it won’t end the story. California keeps testing how far it can push against dominant firms. Tech companies keep resisting. The friction produces incremental change. Sometimes it produces nothing at all. But the pressure doesn’t vanish. It simply shifts form. From Sacramento hearings to Oakland courtrooms to courtroom filings that name names. The state refuses to step back. Big Tech notices. So do the smaller players hoping for air.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication