California AG Bonta on Paramount-Warner Bros., Meta and AI

Author: Bloomberg Television · Watch on YouTube

Video authored by the channel shown, not by IANIA; all rights belong to the creator. Transcript and summary generated automatically; the original-language content is preserved.

Original language: English

Original video: California AG Bonta on Paramount-Warner Bros., Meta and AI · Channel: Bloomberg Television · 16:06 · Watch on YouTube

Topics: Cybersecurity and software security, AI governance and regulation

Summary

California Attorney General Rob Bonta says the state is seeking structural remedies to address alleged antitrust harms from the Paramount-Skydance deal, and is prepared to go to trial if settlement talks fail. He defends states’ authority to enforce antitrust law and says California is monitoring AI chatbots and will hold companies responsible when their products cause unlawful harm. Bonta also discusses the Meta settlement, the next phase of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case, prediction markets, and states’ authority over elections. He argues that the federal government has exceeded its authority in several areas and says California will continue to challenge unlawful actions in court.

Key points

California is seeking structural remedies in its challenge to the Paramount-Skydance merger, particularly in theatrical releases, theatrical distribution, and cable-channel licensing.
Bonta says behavioral commitments are generally harder to enforce than structural remedies, though splitting off intellectual property could be considered.
He says California is willing to pursue settlement talks in good faith but is confident it can win at trial.
Bonta disputes Paramount’s claims about relocating jobs, saying the merger itself could cause job losses and reduced economic activity.
He supports states’ authority to bring antitrust cases, arguing federal enforcement has retreated.
California intends to press for industry-wide protections for children following its settlement with Meta and its litigation with TikTok.
Bonta says existing laws apply to AI and that companies may be responsible for harms caused by tools they create, including chatbots.
The states won the liability phase of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case and are moving to the remedies phase.
Bonta argues that federal law does not prevent states from regulating prediction markets to protect residents.
He says California will challenge unlawful federal interference in elections and defend states’ authority over voting procedures.

Chapters

Start	Chapter	Summary
00:00	Paramount-Skydance settlement talks and remedies	Bonta explains California’s antitrust case, its preference for structural remedies, and its willingness to go to trial if settlement talks fail.
03:47	Jobs, economic impact, and state antitrust authority	Bonta responds to claims that Paramount might leave California, describes the alleged harms of the merger, and defends states’ ability to enforce antitrust law.
07:59	Meta settlement and AI safeguards	The discussion turns to protections for children on social platforms, California’s AI investigations, and responsibility for harms caused by AI products.
11:18	Live Nation-Ticketmaster and prediction markets	Bonta outlines the remedies phase of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case and argues that states retain authority to regulate gambling and prediction markets.
13:25	Federal power and election authority	Bonta criticizes the administration’s claims of federal authority, defends state sovereignty, and says California will oppose unlawful interference with voting.

Quotes

We do prefer when possible to resolve disputes in the boardroom rather than the courtroom. — 00:30

Those have typically been difficult to enforce, and are not preferred to structural remedies. — 01:39

AI is a new technology, new ish, but it is not the Wild West. — 10:11

They found for the states, bipartisan group of states, by the way, and against Ticketmaster Live Nation. — 11:18

we will go to court and we will stop him. — 16:06

Concepts and entities

Rob Bonta, Paramount, Skydance, United States Department of Justice, solução estrutural, medida comportamental, Meta, OpenAI, Hugging Face, Live Nation, Ticketmaster, CFTC

Full transcript (original language)

00:00 Here in Studio 2 for an exclusive conversation is the attorney general of California, Rob Bonta. Great to have you here, mister general. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. I do wanna start off. We have court orderment court court ordered settlement talks on the Paramount Sky Dance deal about a month from now. You’re still fighting this deal. Do you plan to go into those settlement talks with an eye of actually bringing this to a close, or is this gonna come to a close in court? We don’t know. It could go either way, but we will certainly enter settlement discussions with

00:30 a plan to achieve our goals and a hope that we can, and and and a a commitment to engage in good faith and sincerely to try to get what the people of California deserve in settlement talks. So we we do prefer when possible to resolve disputes in the boardroom rather than the courtroom. But if not, we’ll go to trial. And in this case, we feel very confident going to trial. The judge has already decided and stated that we are likely to win this case when she issued her temporary restraining order. What are sort of the minimum acceptable remedies that you would take in order to settle

01:03 this case? Is it just kind of the sell off of some of the cable networks, keeping the film studios kind of structurally together. What do you want? Yeah. I’ve talked in the past about the need for structural remedies. Mhmm. That is that is what we’re seeking. That’s what we’re fighting for when it comes to the three markets that we have identified in our complaint as the ones that are impacted in an unlawful way by this proposed merger, and it’s it’s blockbuster theatrical release, widespread theatrical release distribution, and cable channel licensing. So, like like in any antitrust case, we look at structural remedies as

01:39 our top priority. Well, Paramount has offered to do to have a certain amount of releases that are theatrical. Why was that not enough to appease you? I think they said 30. That that’s a behavioral remedy, and Mhmm. We, again That’s not structural. That’s not structural. Structural is usually keeping different corporate entities separate. A behavioral remedy is a commitment to behave in a certain way, do certain things at a time in the future. Those have typically been difficult to enforce, and are not preferred to structural remedies. So sales of cable channels would be structural Yes. In you? Yeah.

02:10 Divestitures, sale sell offs. What about splitting off some of the intellectual property from, you know, say, some some of the the franchises? Is that something that would be considered structurally acceptable to you? That could be a component. Do you think that Paramount would even be open to that? I mean, that’s a big ask. Yeah. I don’t know. Yeah. It’s it’s it’s up to them. Mhmm. There’s a whole set of different possibilities. Yeah. So through the settlement process that’s ordered by the court, we’d be able to explore them. Okay. Give me a sense, though, of your mindset just on this deal here because we talk about a DOJ that is says it’s reviewed millions of documents, says that it’s fine

02:41 with this deal. Every country out there is more or less signed off in this and says, for whatever reason or another, they’re okay with this deal. I mean, what are you seeing about this in terms of potential harm that is causing you to maintain this fight? Yeah. You know, the the other regulators across the the world who look at this are looking at it with their own rules, and their own geographic market, and their own business market. It’s very different from ours. We believe that we’re the only ones that have looked at this case in the American market, looking at the the different business markets that are

03:15 impacted in in an appropriate way. With respect, the United States Department of Justice, I don’t think, did an appropriate review, and it was not rigorous. We came to a completely different conclusion when we applied the law and the facts. We clearly found unlawful levels of market concentration that would be that are permissibly unlawful under the law in three separate markets. We are confident in what we found. We’re confident in our case, and so far, we’ve been winning in court. When Paramount says, okay. We’re gonna relocate. You know, we’re gonna take, you know, 50 plus

03:47 thousand jobs and however many billions of dollars in, you know, economic contributions to the state somewhere else. Is that a legitimate threat in your view? I think only they know what they’ll do or won’t do. I can’t comment on what a corporation will do or or what it says. If if they leave, though, what happens? I mean, is there something to fill that hole, or or is that not or is the impact manageable enough in your view? I know it’s not your job to manage the impact, but I’m sure you have to consider it after talking it over with other state leaders.

04:18 Yeah. You know, I’m not focused on that. No. I I’ve called it a threat. It’s a threat that they’ve made since before we made the brought the lawsuit. Since we brought the lawsuit, I think they’re still making it. Mhmm. Today, it’s inconsistent with their other professed commitments to LA and to California. So it’s inconsistent. It seems hypocritical. If they decide to leave, there’s nothing about this case or what I’m asking for that requires them to leave. In fact, I want them to stay. Mhmm. So it’ll be their own independent choice. It’ll be their decision. It’ll lie at their feet. We have to do our job. We have to enforce the law. That’s what we’ll we’ll do. We’re I’m committed to enforcing the law

04:51 without fear or favor. We’ll do it firmly. We’ll do it fairly. And, at the same time, we’re also open to having Yeah. Good faith discussions if they wanna come to the table. That’s door is always open, but we’re confident in our case. We’re willing to take it to trial, and we think we’ll win. But not to harp on it, though. But if if they lost and they did pull out, and you lost those jobs and and that economic contribution, would the lawsuit in your view still have been worth it? Well, the lawsuit seeks to block harms to jobs. Mhmm. The the the merger stands as

05:22 a study in LA County just showed the merger will create thousands of jobs lost, 5,000 to 10,000. It’ll create 3,000,000,000, about a $3,000,000,000 loss in economic activity. So the merger is what we are trying to block because of the harm it will create. Yeah. And so we’re trying to make sure there’s fair prices for consumers who pay for satellite, pay for cable, who wanna go to the movies, make sure we have a free and fair market where there’s choice, quality, competition. Yeah. A merger tends to will will will will harm that free and fair market in in three different markets.

05:52 Well, I mean, but once we get to the end of this month and the clock starts ticking, you start getting, what, $7,000,000 a day, hit to Paramount. They’re asking for $1,900,000,000 bond, basically, fronted by California taxpayers. The DOJ has even, I I don’t know if they’ve taken the side of that, but they’ve definitely weighed in on this. Are you prepared to put up that bond if necessary? I don’t think we’ll be asked to pay that bond. I think it’s meritless. They agreed to have the trial next summer. That was an agreement. Mhmm. We agreed to all the terms. The terms did not include a bond. They’re trying to rewrite a commitment, a promise.

06:23 They’re trying to renege on a commitment and a promise they made, and try to ask for something after the fact that wasn’t part of the original commitment. So I don’t think they’re going win that. We’re not concerned, particularly in that. Of course, we’ll honor whatever the judge says, and we’re focused on our on our case. I mean, there there’s a broader question here too also about this idea of federal clearance of some of these types of m and a deals, not just with Paramount Skydance and then states that’s basically deciding that they have a bone to pick. I know that’s not unusual, but it seems that the DOJ has certainly taken issue with how aggressive recent actions

06:56 have been, not just by by you and California, by by other states as well. How much say do you think the individual state should have on issues that, at least to use the DOJ’s phrasing, are national issues? I think well settled law is just fine, which allows for states to when the law and the facts provide for it and indicate that there’s an antitrust violation, to sue. This this is very common. It would be unprecedented, and it would be new precedent. It would be uncharted territory for us not to be able to do that. Mhmm. And I think

07:28 it’s particularly important now, because I think that American people see that the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Government, the FTC, have withdrawn and retreated from their enforcement of antitrust law. They’re not protecting the affordability of the American people. Trump doesn’t even believe in this thing called unaffordability, and so it the that job needs to get done. The federal government has played that role in the past, the US DOJ, the FTC, but they’re not playing it now in the way that they should. So the states can and should step up to protect the American people to make sure that they are not threatened with unlawful unaffordability,

07:59 higher prices, have to pay more for less. So I think it’s completely appropriate, and I and it is well settled law under US Supreme Court precedent. You had a victory with regards, to Meta and getting them to settle, I mean, you and the other states, I should I should point out, getting them to settle $18,000,000,000. There are still some contingencies, though, with some of the remedies that they’re supposed to take on TikTok, YouTube, and some of the other services also making those changes. How confident are you that they are gonna do that? And if they don’t, then what is your course of action? Yeah. We think it was a really transformational moment, a watershed moment, an inflection moment when

08:31 we got Meta to make these changes going forward. It’ll it’ll really reduce the harm to the mental health of kids going forward. It’s the injunctive relief that changes in behavior for Meta that they need to stop visiting this harm on kids. That is so valuable. There’s also $17,000,000,000 to be used to address mental health harms. We’re committed to making sure that these are industry wide changes, that others like TikTok, like YouTube, like Snap are also gonna follow these rules. They can do it voluntarily, or we we do have litigation now with

09:01 TikTok. Yeah. But we are committed to making sure they that these these rules, these guardrails, these protections for kids exist throughout the industry. How are those projections gonna expand into the AI era? Because this is less today about social media, now about AI and chatbots, and I know that California has been trying to sort of, you know, put some safeguards in with those chatbots. Are you prepared if a case does arise where you feel a chatbot was somehow responsible or the company that ran it was responsible for some harm to one of your residents. Are you prepared to bring enforcement action Absolutely. In that front? Do you have the capabilities and know how to do

09:34 that for the AI era? We do. Yeah. We do. And, you know, we we are looking very closely at chatbots, at at at AI, at AI agents. Mhmm. We we have an investigation into the the incident and with OpenAI when their agents AI agents left the sandbox and Mhmm. And got into areas that they shouldn’t be Yeah. Hugging face. And we are making sure that chatbot We have laws preventing chatbots from teaching kids how to kill themselves. That’s happened in the past, having sexually explicit conversations with kids. We There’s laws against non consensual, images being created

10:11 using AI. So we are prepared to enforce all those and make sure our kids are safe and laws are followed. And, you know, AI is a new technology, new ish, but it is not the Wild West. There are a whole bunch of existing laws and some new laws that apply that provide regulation and guardrails. Has there been discussion? I mean, I I don’t know what the current law is. Obviously, you do. But has there been discussion about who should shoulder the liability? Because when you talk to some of these companies, they’ll say, well, it’s kind of this little, you know, shell game where they’re saying, well, it’s not really our thing. If that agent is owned by, you know, the customer, it’s owned by this person, that person. Have you guys kind

10:43 of mapped out where liability would even fall? Yeah. You know, they’re responsible for the tools that they create, the products and services they put out into the world. They can’t shift responsibility onto, you know, an individual for the products that they create, for the AI tools that they’ve created, like including chat bots. So, you know, of course, we’ll be fair and appropriate with respect to who did what and who, should be held responsible. But Mhmm. If if the AI that was created by an AI company is what causes the harm and it breaks the law, that responsibility would clearly

11:18 lie with them. We I have a few minutes left, but I I’m just curious. I do wanna ask you about Live Nation Ticketmaster. Where where does that case stand? We we went at trial with the verdict where the jury found for us with for every question presented to them. They found for the states, bipartisan group of states, by the way, and against Ticketmaster Live Nation. The trial or or or the litigation is what we call bifurcated. There was a liability phase. That’s done. We won the states, and now we’re going into the what we call the remedies phase where we would determine if Ticketmaster will be divested or what other remedies will be imposed to address the the the unlawful conduct

11:50 of Ticketmaster Live Nation. I I wanna get your thoughts on on prediction markets. This has become a a huge issue right now where, obviously, the traditional sports books are a lot of are very concerned about, the prediction markets operating in, at least in their view, a gray area. This gets back down to federal regulation, which according to the Trump administration, they have authority over prediction markets in the states who have traditionally run sports books and other betting oversight here. Are you prepared to interject yourself further into that, particularly after the ninth circuit ruling and now

12:22 what I assume is gonna be a supreme court supreme court weighing in? I’ve been very clear about my position that the federal law and the CFTC, their decisions do not preempt the states from being able to engage if we wish to protect the health, safety, welfare of our people. When it comes to gambling, for example, states have been very involved in providing regulation, and the Ninth Circuit has found that that is the correct interpretation. Mhmm. Other circuits have found differently, so maybe it does go to the US Supreme Court. Right now, the focus is on what authority the states have, and I believe the states have

12:55 vast authority, and it and our authority is not preempted by the federal government. Do you worry do you worry about overall, and not just with the prediction marks, everything that’s going on, you know, mail in balloting, all this other stuff about the erosion of states’ power to basically be the regulators for their state. I mean, the this this administration has made it clear that they think the federal government should have much more say and a much bigger footprint in everything that goes on across all 50 states. I think that is their view. They have this view Do they have a legal case to stand on?

13:25 No. They’ve lost time and time again. Yeah. So that’s what they want. That’s their view. They would have this this vision, this view. It it’s it’s frankly a, it’s unjustified and and it’s a fringe view, but they want to impose it because it gives them more power. It’s self serving, but it is not consistent with The US constitution, the separation of powers, checks and balances, rights and freedoms, state sovereignty, the tenth amendment, all the things that give limited power to the executive branch. They do have authority that’s granted to them, but they don’t have the authority of congress. They don’t have the authority of the courts. They don’t have the authority of the states. Mhmm. We are designed in this democracy to share

13:58 power, not have it all concentrated in the executive branch. So they have lost time and time again. We’ve sued them 92 times. We’ve won 83% of the time. We protected funding that’s ours when they tried to block it. We protected rights and freedoms. Mhmm. We’ve blocked we struck down tariffs. We’ve pushed the federal national unlawfully federalized national guard out of our state, and, you know, we defended birthright citizenship, a US constitutional right that Trump tried to rewrite on his own. So I’m not worried about that. I I because I think the law is gonna prevail Yeah. And the constitution will will be the final decider of where

14:32 power lies, and we have the tenth amendment which gives states vast authority. On the idea though of maybe cooperating, and I’m just gonna ask you about the mail in ballots because we did get a a bit of a supreme court backing this idea of still allowing that, though I felt like Kevin all sort of left the door open maybe for the Trump administration to come back on that. Is there been any discussion about maybe having some negotiation as to how to make mail in balloting a little, to bolster it a little bit, to deal with maybe, barcodes and scannable envelopes and other things that would satisfy maybe some of the federal government’s concerns and at the same time provide that

15:04 ease of access that most voters want? You know, Trump has been a conspiracy theory theorist in chief. He’s been a gaslighter in chief. He has promoted lies to the American people. There is no widespread voter fraud. There just isn’t despite what he says. Every court case, every audit, every count, recount, hen count has shown this. So he’s manufacturing, inventing, making up, lying about a problem, and then trying to say, hey, we need to fix it. And it is absolutely clear from the US constitution that the federal government has zero role in determining the time, place, and manner of

15:36 elections, the states, and to a degree, congress do. So he unlawfully tried to interfere with the this coming election by interfering with vote by mail ballots. We put the nail in the coffin. We put a stake through the heart of that effort when the US Supreme Court made the final ruling. Mhmm. And we won that case. But will he continue to try to interfere? Yes. I think he will. He will try to interfere with our elections. He is the threat to free and fair elections and an election integrity. And if he acts unlawfully and tries to interfere with our fundamental right to vote, the right from which

16:06 all of the rights flow, we will go to court and we will stop him. Alright, Rob. I have to leave it there. Appreciate you being with us. Appreciate your candor. Rob Bonta, the attorney general for the state of California.