Telecommunications

Paramount CEO David Ellison may pull his operations out of California if the state does not end its attempt to block the company’s merger with Warner Bros Discovery and agree to settlement talks as soon as October.

The rumours were first reported by the publication Variety on Tuesday. They signal Ellison may be willing to leverage economic pressure on California’s ailing film industry in order to push through the merger.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently confirm the validity of the report.

In July, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that he was leading a coalition of 12 state attorneys general in an antitrust lawsuit to block the consolidation.

Should Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery combine, Bonta warned that the resulting company would control 27 percent of theatrically released films in the United States and a third of the country’s basic-cable output.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices,” Bonta said. “It also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

But Variety reported that Ellison told Paramount’s senior executives that he would begin the process of moving the company out of California on October 1 if Bonta does not agree to settlement talks.

There could be downstream effects as well. The report also alleged that Ellison would pull Warner Bros Discovery out of California, too, if the $110bn merger goes through.

Variety indicated that Paramount is considering relocating to the US states of Tennessee, Texas or Georgia — none of which are involved in the ongoing antitrust lawsuit.

A growing enterprise

The dispute over Warner Bros Discovery’s fate stretches back to late 2025, when the company’s sale was first announced.

Critics quickly observed that the sale had the potential to shift the balance of power in Hollywood, with Warner Bros Discovery wielding influential properties including the news channel CNN, the production company New Line Cinema and the television-streaming service HBO.

The streaming giant Netflix initially emerged as a frontrunner to take over Warner Bros Discovery, but by February, Paramount succeeded in inking an agreement.

It was the second major merger Paramount had lined up in less than a year. In 2025, it had also succeeded in consolidating with the media production company Skydance, in a deal that generated scrutiny about the editorial independence of its subsidiaries.

Paramount’s decisions that year to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and enter into a $16m settlement with US President Donald Trump were widely perceived as efforts to curry government favour for the merger.

Paramount is considered a titan in US filmmaking and media production, as one of the oldest studios in the country. Its portfolio includes CBS News and Paramount Pictures.

A pair of lawsuits

The impending merger with Warner Bros Discovery has led to a fresh round of scrutiny for Ellison and the Paramount leadership.

Last week, Ellison addressed some of those concerns in an opinion column in The New York Times.

In it, he questioned whether the states’ antitrust lawsuit was “really about market share”, speculating that it was instead about control over major news outlets like CNN. He also sought to portray himself as politically independent.

“I have regularly voted for candidates of both parties; I hold some views that would be called conservative and others that would be called liberal, just like most Americans,” Ellison wrote.

“When it comes to our news operations, I do not aspire to lead these companies to bend their newsrooms to my views.”

But the states have argued that combining Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount would create a monopoly, stifling competition.

If the merger succeeds, the states say that only four distributors would control 86 percent of the country’s films.

The merger could also mean job losses. As of the end of 2025, the headcount at Paramount stood at 17,600, while Warner Bros Discovery had 35,500 employees.

A day after the 12 states filed their lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) followed suit.

In its July 14 complaint, the guild argued that the merger would mean fewer jobs and more pressure on writers to accept less favourable working terms, owing to reduced competition in the media market.

“Writers will be paid less and have fewer employment opportunities,” the WGA complaint said.

In Los Angeles County alone, the merger could result in a loss of nearly 2,500 jobs, according to an analysis by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity, published in June.

As many as 6,000 employees around the world could also see their positions cut.

By comparison, when the Paramount and Skydance merger was completed in 2025, the company laid off roughly 2,000 people.

Costly standoff

On July 24, Paramount Skydance agreed to pause the merger until a ruling in the states’ case is ultimately made or until June 1, 2027 — a move the WGA celebrated.

“It remains our view that this merger is unlawful, and we will continue the fight to block it,” WGA said at the time.

The WGA did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Slowing the merger could be costly for Paramount Skydance. Under the terms of the merger, the company would have to pay a so-called ticking fee of $7m per day, or $650m per quarter, if the deal does not close by September 30.

But the standoff with Ellison could also be costly for California, which is experiencing a downturn in the number of productions filmed in the state. New York, another state involved in the lawsuit, could see a backlash, as it houses studios for CBS News and Paramount’s executive offices.

Representatives for the state of California and Paramount Skydance did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Paramount Skydance’s stock is trending upward on the heels of Tuesday’s report. The stock was up 0.4 percent in midday trading, while Warner Bros Discovery was up 1.1 percent.

Critics say the 39 percent cap was a safeguard against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US.

The United States Federal Communications Commission has voted to rescind the rule that bars local broadcast station owners from reaching more than 39 percent of the total number of US TV households in a move that could help spark industry consolidation.

The FCC on Thursday voted 2-1 to lift the cap in favour of a new case-by-case approach. The commission’s sole Democrat, Anna Gomez, said the proposal was illegal and argued only the US Congress can lift the cap. Many critics argue the move will lead to excessive market power among station owners.

Under the rules, stations with weaker over-the-air signals can be partially counted against a company’s ownership cap. The FCC has limited ownership of local broadcast stations since 1941 and most recently raised the cap to 39 percent in 2004.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the move is about helping local broadcasters survive and pointed to the sharp decline in local newspapers.

“We should stop hamstringing this one segment of the broader market with outdated restrictions,” Carr said.

“The FCC kept a rule on the books in the name of localism that contributed to the gutting of local newspapers … I don’t want local broadcast TV to go the way of local newspapers.”

The FCC said the new rule would consider applications on television company mergers that would go above 39 percent on an individual basis to determine if they are in the public interest. The agency said it would “remove artificial restrictions on opportunities for broadcast television to attract capital and generate revenue”.

Gomez said the decision is “an invitation to bring in a lot of transactions”.

‘More control’

Lifting the cap hands “more control of the public airwaves to a small number of companies whose coverage pleases this administration … It is putting its thumb on the scale in favour of content that this administration likes,” she added.

Carr has said the change would allow local television owners to increase investment in local programming and give them more leverage against national networks.

In March, the FCC approved the $3.54bn sale of ‌local television station owner Tegna to Nexstar despite objections from Democratic-led states.

The acquisition, if not reversed by courts, will expand Nexstar’s presence to cover 80 percent of US TV households. The FCC has said it was waiving the 39 percent rule in approving the deal.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz, a Republican, said last month that he is sceptical the FCC can hike the 39 percent cap without an act of Congress.

Clayton Weimers, executive director at Reporters Without Borders North America, said in a statement that with this latest move, the FCC has “abandoned” one of the last significant safeguards against excessive concentration of media ownership in the US, which ensured that “no single company or individual should be allowed to dominate what millions of Americans see, hear, and understand about the world”.

“Today’s vote eliminates that safeguard and only benefits a handful of already powerful media conglomerates. This is not deregulation in the public interest. It is consolidation in the interest of the powerful,” Weimers said.

He said that the action exceeds the FCC’s legal authority and that Reporters Without Borders was evaluating every available legal avenue to challenge this decision.

The United States has continued to attack Iran for a 13th consecutive night on Thursday and explosions were reported in multiple Iranian cities on Friday morning.

In addition to the ongoing attacks, shipping disruptions continue to intensify. Ship tracking data revealed that just one tanker successfully crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, marking the lowest level since May 7.

However, shipping data from London Stock Exchange Group shows that two Chinese supertankers carrying crude oil from Saudi Arabia successfully exited the Bab al-Mandeb strait on Friday. This is despite the naval blockade Yemen’s Houthis announced against Saudi Arabia on Monday.

Here is a recap of what happened on Thursday night and Friday.

Where did the US attack Iran?

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that at 01:00 GMT on Friday, it concluded its latest round of strikes against Iran.

CENTCOM said it targeted Iranian military command centres, drone storage facilities, communication networks, coastal surveillance sites and maritime capabilities.

On Friday, Iranian media reported explosions or attacks across multiple Iranian cities. State broadcaster IRIB reported that explosions were reported in Khondab, Khorramabad, Konarak and Jask. Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency reported that two people have been injured following an early morning drone attack on Khorramabad, citing the deputy governor of the western Lorestan province.

Iran’s Mehr news agency reported on Friday that US missile strikes hit the cities of Andimeshk and Omidiyeh in the Khuzestan province. There were no casualties or injuries.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported from the Iranian capital, Tehran, that explosions were heard on Qeshm island, located in the Strait of Hormuz, on Friday.

Attacks on the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas have injured two people, Iranian media reported on Friday.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Friday that four people were killed and five others were injured in a US missile attack near the southwestern city of Ahvaz.

Where did Iran strike in the Gulf?

Bahrain: In a statement carried by Iran’s Mehr news agency, the Iranian army said it used drones to target fuel storage tanks, equipment warehouses and troop living quarters at Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain.

Jordan: The military added that aircraft hangars, maintenance facilities and accommodation sites at the Muwaffaq Salti/Al-Azraq base in Jordan were also hit, warning that any actions against Iran’s interests would undermine regional security and economic stability.

What have leaders on either side said?

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump stepped up his rhetoric against Tehran. He told the US news website Axios that he may launch the largest strikes on Iran yet, after Tehran carried out another wave of retaliatory attacks on US allies in the Gulf, including hitting a telecommunications tower in Kuwait.

Trump said he was “considering a massive attack” that would be “bigger than ever before”.

“I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” Trump said.

Separately, Trump threatened, on his Truth Social platform, that if Iran attacked ships, the US would use Tehran’s frozen assets to pay for repairs.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned on Friday that using frozen state assets to pay for future claims sets a dangerous global precedent.

“Seizing another nation’s assets to pay for unrelated future claims is an incendiary precedent,” Araghchi wrote on X.

He cautioned that “those who celebrate or profit from such funds should remember: once governments normalise confiscation, no one’s assets are safe. Ensuing chaos will not be pretty or peaceful”.

WhatsApp says the feature is designed to give its three billion users a new layer of control over who can contact them.

WhatsApp will let users go by usernames instead of phone numbers, closing a longstanding privacy gap on the app used by more than three billion people.

The Meta-owned platform said on Monday that it has begun letting users reserve unique usernames before a wider rollout later this year when people will be able to choose to be found and contacted only by their handles.

WhatsApp said the change was designed as a core privacy feature with no public directory of usernames and no autocomplete suggestions, meaning users will need to know someone’s exact username to reach them for the first time.

WhatsApp offers end-to-end encrypted communication across smartphones, tablets and desktop computers. Until now, it has allowed users to be contacted by anyone who has their phone number.

The app said in a blog post that over the “coming months”, users will get the option to be found and contacted only by their username, and not their number. It wasn’t more specific about the timeline.

“We have designed this as a core privacy feature,” Alice Newton-Rex, WhatsApp’s vice president of product, told reporters.

“People will need to know your exact username to contact you for the first time,” she said.

WhatsApp’s current privacy settings are limited to blocking individual users and silencing unknown callers.

The app also allows users to add a profile name, but that’s only displayed in chat groups for other people who don’t have the user’s contact info saved.

A scramble for unique usernames

While people in the United States still prefer text messaging to WhatsApp, the app is widely used in Europe, Asia and much of the rest of the world.

Catchy online handles are highly coveted, and users will likely scramble to claim a desirable one.

“I think a lot of people will go and get usernames, and that’s why we decided to open reservations early,” Newton-Rex said.

Companies, organisations and creators with existing accounts on Meta’s social media platforms, Instagram and Facebook, will get the chance to claim their usernames on WhatsApp.

Usernames need to be three to 35 characters. To prevent impersonation, WhatsApp will hold back usernames for high-profile people or groups, such as celebrities, public figures and government entities.

SpaceX lands on public markets as the sixth largest US company by market value.

SpaceX has debuted on US markets with a market valuation of more than $2 trillion, minting CEO Elon Musk as the world’s first trillionaire.

Shares are set to open on Friday at $150 per share, marking a 6.6 percent increase from the initial public offering (IPO) price, valuing the company at $1.96 trillion putting the aerospace company on track to become the sixth-largest company in the United States.

The company sold $75bn in shares, immediately valuing it at $1.77 trillion. The IPO was oversubscribed four times higher than was otherwise expected, according to the Reuters news agency.

Of the institutional investors allocated, according to Bloomberg News, as much as 70 percent went to what are called long-only investments — a strategy in which holders buy assets based on the expectation that their value will grow over time — and sovereign wealth funds, including those from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well.

SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen rang the Nasdaq MarketSite in New York City opening bell at 9:30am local time as US markets opened.

On Thursday, protesters gathered outside the MarketSite to protest the IPO amid continued allegations that Grok, part of xAI, a subsidiary of SpaceX, allowed users to create non-consensual deepfake sexualised images before the IPO debut.

Shares of SpaceX did not trade until the middle of the trading day as the exchange collected buy and sell orders and underwriters delayed trading until supply and demand were balanced.

“We would expect SpaceX to see an immediate pop in trading due to the hype around the deal, north of 20 percent perhaps,” said Samuel Kerr, global head of equity capital markets at Mergermarket. “Anything lower would actually make me nervous.”

Exchanges and trading firms are eager to avoid the technical mishaps that marred Meta’s 2012 debut. With SpaceX widely viewed as a dress rehearsal for a new generation of mega-listings, market participants will also be watching for signals on investor appetite in advance of forthcoming IPOs for AI heavyweights Anthropic and OpenAI.

The landmark listing cemented Musk’s status as the first trillionaire ever and propelled SpaceX into the ranks of the world’s most valuable companies — even though the firm posted a loss of nearly $5bn last year and generated only a fraction of the revenue brought in by similarly valued tech giants.

The surge comes amid growth driven by its Starlink subsidiary, which drives as much as 80 percent of its revenue.

On Friday, SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket with 29 satellites into space from Cape Canaveral in Florida.