Paramont's general counsel accuses merger critics of antisemitism
Paramount’s top lawyer accused critics of the Warner Bros. Discovery merger of using antisemitic tropes, while opponents argue the deal concentrates too much power. The outcome could shape Hollywood’s competitive landscape and impact jobs, creativity, and market fairness.
Paramount Skydance’s top lawyer accused critics of the $111 billion Warner Bros. Discovery merger of stoking fear using antisemitic tropes. Makan Delrahim, the company’s chief legal officer, told the Los Angeles Times that opposition from Hollywood figures and rival studios stems not from legitimate business concerns but from “their own antisemitic views.” The claim adds a charged layer to a deal already roiling Tinseltown.
The skirmish over the merger pits David Ellison’s Skydance, backed by a Saudi sovereign wealth fund, against a bloc that includes Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav and a group of studio rivals. Those critics argue the deal concentrates too much power in the hands of Ellison, who is Jewish, and risks gutting creative autonomy at Warner’s legacy brands. Delrahim’s salvo is the latest in a public relations war that has spilled into opinion pages and social media, with both sides trading barbs about market fairness and cultural influence.
The fracas matters because Hollywood’s center of gravity is on the line. If regulators at the Justice Department or Federal Trade Commission see the deal as anticompetitive, they could block it or demand divestitures. Meanwhile, talent agencies, streamers, and theater chains are already recalibrating strategies, fearing a future where two giant studios dictate what gets made and where it plays. Delrahim’s accusation sharpens the tone: he’s framing the debate as a struggle between “fear mongering” and transparent deal-making.
What happens next: the two camps will keep lobbying regulators, while Skydance prepares documents to rebut antitrust concerns. Public lines will harden; private talks may soften. But the antisemitism charge—rare in modern deal disputes—risks overshadowing the real questions: will this merger kill jobs, kill competition, or just kill off weaker competitors?
