GoKawiil
Tech News
Several states have agreed to settle an antitrust lawsuit that sought to block the combination of Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery, removing the last major legal obstacle to the deal. Shares of both companies rose sharply following news of the settlement, as investors now expect the merger to move forward quickly.
Paramount Skydance reached a settlement with state attorneys general who had sued to block its $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, avoiding a trial that was scheduled for next spring. As part of the deal, Paramount agreed to boost domestic production, follow certain theatrical release rules, and create a new board to oversee editorial independence at CBS News and CNN. CEO David Ellison told staff the company now expects to close the merger within about two weeks.
Paramount has reached a settlement resolving the antitrust lawsuit filed by 12 state attorneys general that had stalled its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The consent decree requires an editorial oversight board for CNN and CBS News, annual theatrical releases with added domestic production spending, and separate sale of cable bundles to distributors, but does not force Paramount to sell off its networks or studios. The agreement still needs court approval before the merger can proceed.
Paramount reached a settlement with a coalition of 12 state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, who had sued to block its $11 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. The company agreed to establish an editorial independence board overseeing CBS News and CNN, commit to 30 theatrical releases annually, and protect CBS News Broadcast writers from layoffs for five years while paying $17.5 million to the Writers Guild's health fund. The merger is now expected to close in early October, giving Paramount chief David Ellison control over franchises including DC and Harry Potter.
Four paying subscribers of ChatGPT, Claude, Grok and Gemini have filed a proposed class action in California federal court, alleging that the four AI companies illegally coordinated to slow product development. The suit cites Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's September 12 essay calling for an industry-wide pace slowdown, which was publicly endorsed by Sam Altman, Elon Musk and Demis Hassabis, along with an earlier July statement acknowledging pressure not to unilaterally slow progress. Plaintiffs say this coordinated restraint, not individual safety decisions, amounts to an antitrust violation that shortchanges paying customers.
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed by four paying subscribers of ChatGPT, Claude, Grok and Gemini accuses the four AI companies of colluding to deliberately slow AI development, allegedly starting after the firms signed a joint safety statement. The plaintiffs' attorney, Nick Rowley, argues the coordinated slowdown reduces the value of paid subscriptions and lets powerful companies dictate AI safety policy through a private, self-serving arrangement rather than individual accountability.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman denied OpenAI's request to access the confidential terms of a settlement between X, SpaceX AI, and Apple in an ongoing antitrust lawsuit. X and SpaceX AI plan to drop their claims against Apple after reaching the deal, but the case continues against OpenAI. Pittman reviewed the agreement privately and concluded it holds no information pertinent to the remaining dispute.
Federal Judge Mark Pittman is demanding X and SpaceX's AI unit turn over any agreement that led them to voluntarily drop antitrust claims against Apple, while continuing their suit against OpenAI. The original lawsuit alleged Apple and OpenAI colluded to suppress rival AI apps on the App Store after agreeing to integrate ChatGPT into Siri. OpenAI filed an emergency motion pushing for disclosure of the settlement terms, and Pittman has given the companies until noon on September 17 to respond.
Apple is facing a new legal challenge in the UK targeting its App Tracking Transparency feature, marking the third such lawsuit in the country. The suit reportedly introduces a new angle compared to prior cases, though it continues to center on claims that Apple's privacy rules unfairly disadvantage third-party developers while exempting its own apps.