Iowa attorney general says she'll take California to SCOTUS
Iowa attorney general says she is taking California to the U.S. Supreme Court over its lead role in a lawsuit against the Paramount–Warner Bros. merger. Brenna Bird argued in a Daily Wire op-ed that California is acting as the country’s regulator and that disputes between states belong only in the Supreme Court under the Constitution.
Key Takeaways
- Iowa AG Brenna Bird says she will sue California at the U.S. Supreme Court over the multistate challenge to the Paramount–Warner Bros. merger.
- Bird frames the fight as a state-versus-state dispute; Variety reports it is unclear whether she has filed paperwork or has clear legal authority to proceed.
- She argues a combined Paramount–Warner Bros. would better compete with Netflix, Disney, and Amazon and could unlock about $6 billion in savings plus at least 30 theatrical films a year.
- California AG Rob Bonta and 11 other state attorneys general sued in July after the DOJ cleared the deal; a planned settlement sit-down was called off amid leak accusations.
The clash sits at the center of Hollywood’s biggest streaming-and-studio story right now. For more streaming and TV alerts, BlasterPost is tracking how state AGs, Washington, and the studios shape what you watch—and what you pay.
Why is Iowa’s attorney general targeting California?
According to Variety’s report, Bird wrote that California is “once again trying to be the country’s regulator” and is “defying common sense to raise costs around the country.” That, she said, makes the matter a dispute between states that the Constitution reserves for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Variety notes it is unclear whether Bird has filed any lawsuit paperwork or whether Iowa has legal authority to force the issue. Still, the outlet said the Supreme Court threat alone could pressure California AG Rob Bonta back toward talks.
What does Bird say the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger would do?
Bird argues streaming bills are already too high for “any Iowa family” and that there are “fewer quality shows,” symptoms of one company getting “too far in front” while rivals stay “too small to catch up.” A Paramount–Warner Bros. combination, she wrote, would help fix that.
“Netflix dominates the market for streaming,” Bird wrote. Paramount+ and HBO Max together, she said, are smaller than Netflix, Disney, and Amazon. She cited an estimated $6 billion in savings to reinvest and a public commitment to release at least 30 movies in theaters every year—calling that theatrical pledge a “big deal” for families, small-town theaters, and production crews.
She also warned that deal uncertainty, plus Paramount’s $7 million ticking fee, is freezing two major studios. Warner Bros. cannot confidently green-light films or long-term contracts, she argued, and “no court ruling in 2027 can go back and produce the film that was never shot.”
Where do settlement talks between Paramount and the states stand?
Bonta, joined by 11 other state attorneys general, sued to stop the merger in July after the Department of Justice pushed the deal through. Progress toward a settlement appeared possible after the AGs and Paramount agreed to meet on Monday.
Bonta then canceled at the last minute, accusing the studio of leaking settlement details. Paramount denied involvement and said it shared concerns about public discussion and misreporting. Bonta replied that nothing is scheduled and that talks will not resume until the studio puts a “lid on their lying leaks.”
Whether Iowa’s Supreme Court strategy moves from op-ed to docket remains an open question—but Bird has made clear she sees California’s lawsuit leadership as a national streaming fight, not a local one.