Paramount's legal team

“to cover the period through a decision by the Court.”

Paramount's legal team · said date not stated · reported 2026-07-22

Paramount proposed consenting to an extension of the temporary restraining order pending the court's decision.

“has already recognized Defendants’ proof ‘creates disputes regarding the facts’ that need to be resolved to fully analyze the competitive effects of the transaction. … An evidentiary hearing would allow the Court to do so regarding critical factual issues including market definition, real-world competitive dynamics, barriers to expansion, and incentives. Resolving these factual disputes is essential to answering the fundamental question of whether Plaintiffs have carried their burden to prove that the proposed transaction substantially lessens competition. It does not.”

Paramount's legal team · said date not stated · reported 2026-07-22

Paramount's legal team argued that an evidentiary hearing is needed to resolve factual disputes about the transaction's competitive effects.

“commercial uncertainty regarding the transaction and cost Paramount well over $1 billion in ticking fees and other additional costs.”

Paramount's legal team · said date not stated · reported 2026-07-22

Paramount's legal team warned that a preliminary injunction would create commercial uncertainty and cost the company over $1 billion in ticking fees.