Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery would combine two iconic Hollywood companies at a time when traditional studios face growing pressure from much larger streaming and technology rivals. The deal ultimately would give the combined company greater scale to compete, invest in projects and support the thousands of creative roles and production jobs that depend on a strong entertainment industry.
The economics are compelling for studios, crew and the public alike.
People today enjoy more entertainment choices than at any point in history, while legacy media companies find themselves competing for audiences, ad dollars and talent against tech giants with market capitalizations measuring in the trillions. This isn’t a merger designed to eliminate competition; it’s a response to an industry that’s been transformed by streaming and the extraordinary market power of global platforms.
What deserves far more attention is not whether the merger survives a legal challenge brought by California and 11 other state attorneys general, but what happens as that challenge stretches into 2027. With a federal antitrust trial set for March 2, the uncertainty surrounding the deal will persist for months — and potentially much longer. For California, New York and the hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant entertainment industry, prolonged uncertainty may prove nearly as damaging as an outright rejection.
Business leaders can adapt to almost any outcome. What they cannot plan around are indefinite time lines. When a company doesn’t know when a transformative transaction will close — six months from now, 18 months from now, maybe never — a company’s leadership team naturally becomes cautious about long-term commitments. Investments are delayed, hiring slows, technology spending is postponed, and executives devote increasing attention to litigation rather than to innovation and growth.
That uncertainty could not come at a worse time for Hollywood. Streaming has permanently altered viewer behaviors, live rights continue to become more expensive, and global competitors are investing aggressively while traditional studios face mounting pressure to do more with less.
Were the merger permitted to proceed with certainty, Paramount could redirect its attention now consumed by litigation toward greenlighting films, shows and other projects, expanding productions and supporting writers, actors, directors, crew members, craftspeople and vendors.
It also could make the investments in content needed to keep pace with the industry and sustain creative roles and production jobs across the entertainment economy. In an industry changing this rapidly, every month that major productions and investment decisions remain frozen is another month crew and creatives face uncertainty while competitors continue moving ahead.
California can hardly afford another headwind. After years of watching productions migrate to Georgia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe and other far-flung destinations offering aggressive incentives, on-location production in greater Los Angeles fell another 16.1% in 2025. In response, Gov. Gavin Newsom expanded California’s film tax credit program, which is projected to generate $6.6 billion in economic activity and support nearly 35,000 cast and crew jobs in its first year. It is difficult to reconcile that investment with years of legal uncertainty surrounding one of Hollywood’s most significant transactions.
Those concerns extend beyond the business community. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading the coalition seeking to block the acquisition. But according to recent reporting, Newsom has privately expressed concern that the legal battle could jeopardize jobs and has encouraged efforts to resolve the dispute outside of court. The concern is understandable. Hollywood remains one of California’s defining economic engines, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs — not only producers, writers, actors and directors, but also electricians, editors, construction crews, caterers, transportation companies and thousands of small businesses.
Newsom, who seems to be pushing toward a different calculation than Bonta, deserves credit for putting California’s economic interests first, even if it means breaking with his fellow Democrats.
New York has an equally compelling stake. The state is backing the industry with hundreds of millions of dollars annually in film and post-production incentives designed specifically to keep productions and jobs within its borders, funded through 2036. At a time when New York is competing to attract productions, prolonged uncertainty sends the wrong signal: Extended litigation doesn’t simply delay one merger, it can delay greenlights, production schedules and hiring, creating uncertainty for those that rely on a steady pipeline of film and television work.
The irony is that this litigation could produce exactly the opposite outcome many critics claim to want. When uncertainty persists long enough, companies inevitably become more conservative. They spend less, they hire slowly and they postpone ambitious projects. That isn’t good for competition, innovation, crews or consumers.
I continue to believe this merger would better position two iconic American companies to compete in a marketplace that’s increasingly dominated by Netflix and other global tech firms with virtually unlimited financial resources. But even those who disagree on the legal merits should recognize that allowing this case to drift through years of litigation could impose real costs before any court reaches a final decision.
Delay is not a neutral policy choice. In fast-moving industries, delay becomes an economic decision in its own right.
Our legal system should examine complex transactions carefully, but it also should recognize that justice delayed can become investment delayed, innovation delayed and job creation delayed. In an industry as important to California, New York and the broader American economy as entertainment, those are costs we should not impose any longer than necessary.
Robert Wolf served as an economic advisor to President Obama on the Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Jobs Council and was CEO and chairman of UBS Americas.
Credit: Source link