Paramount’s Makan Delrahim Says Threat to Move Out of California ‘Was Not a Bluff’

Paramount Skydance’s threat to move its operations out of California if its proposed Warner Bros. Discovery merger remained blocked was serious, according to Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, who says the company was genuinely considering leaving the state.

Speaking at TheWrap’s TheGrill 2026 on September 30, Delrahim addressed the controversial relocation discussion and rejected the idea that Paramount was simply using the possibility of leaving California as a negotiating tactic.

“It was not a bluff,” Delrahim said, while also pushing back on describing the relocation plan as a threat.

The relocation discussion emerged as Paramount Skydance sought to resolve an antitrust lawsuit brought by 12 state attorneys general over its proposed $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount CEO David Ellison had indicated that the company could move operations out of California if a settlement was not reached by October 1, potentially affecting thousands of jobs and significant economic activity connected to the studio.

Delrahim said the possibility of moving was part of a broader evaluation of where the company could operate most effectively.

He argued that states compete for major businesses and noted that film and television production has increasingly expanded beyond California to places including New York, New Jersey and Georgia.

When asked whether the relocation proposal helped push the states toward a settlement, Delrahim said he could not determine whether it influenced their position.

However, he was clear that the possibility of leaving California was genuine.

“It was not a bluff.”

Delrahim also said he would not characterize the move as a threat, framing it instead as a business decision Paramount was prepared to consider.

The company’s earlier public comments had already acknowledged that relocating was among the options under consideration as Paramount attempted to resolve the legal dispute surrounding its Warner Bros. Discovery deal.

Delrahim also discussed Paramount’s legal position during the conference, arguing that the state attorneys general did not have a strong antitrust case against the proposed merger.

According to Delrahim, the states’ calculation that the combined Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery company would control about 27% of the relevant market failed to account for competitors including Amazon MGM Studios, Lionsgate and A24.

He argued that including those companies would put the combined market share below 20%, although the states’ case and the company’s response involved broader legal and market considerations.

The dispute eventually produced a settlement containing several commitments involving the proposed combined company.

Among the terms are a commitment to invest at least $1.5 billion over five years in domestic film and television production, release at least 30 movies theatrically each year and establish an independent editorial board overseeing CNN and CBS News operations.

The settlement also includes commitments involving existing union agreements, studio-lot operations and community investments.

A federal judge subsequently approved the settlement, clearing a major legal obstacle to the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery transaction. The merger itself was not yet officially closed at the time of Delrahim’s September 30 comments.

Paramount’s potential departure became a major point of discussion because of the company’s historic connection to Hollywood and the economic importance of the entertainment industry to California.

While Delrahim emphasized that moving was a genuine option, the company’s latest settlement removes a major immediate obstacle to the merger and changes the circumstances surrounding the relocation debate.

For now, Paramount’s future remains closely tied to the completion of its Warner Bros. Discovery transaction and the commitments included in the settlement.