Separately, Paramount has entered into a deed of covenant and undertaking with the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Paramount welcomed the opportunity to engage with DCMS and is pleased to have agreed on a path forward.

Paramount has already received competition clearances from antitrust and competition authorities in: the United States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Kuwait, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Ukraine, and by the European Commission, and the COMESA Competition Commission.

Additionally, Paramount has received foreign direct investment clearances in Australia, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, New Zealand, Romania, Spain, and Slovenia. The transaction was also unconditionally approved by European Commission under its Foreign Subsidies Regulation regime and by the Austrian Federal Competition Authority under its media merger control regime.

With the clearance from the Competition and Markets Authority, bodies and governments representing 66 jurisdictions have either cleared the transaction or chosen not to challenge it on competition and/or foreign direct investment grounds.

These clearances recognize that the combination of Paramount and WBD will enhance consumer choice and enable a creative-first company to invest in more projects and bring stories to audiences worldwide. It will create a scaled media and entertainment company capable of competing with the tech companies that have come to dominate the industry, strengthening the media ecosystem and creating more opportunities for creatives both in front of and behind the camera.

As we have noted, this transaction does not raise antitrust concerns in any market. Today's clearance by the CMA further reinforces that. Similar to the European Commission, which cleared the transaction on 22 July 2026 after months of careful review, the conclusions reached by the CMA directly refute the assumptions that underpin the US state AGs' complaint seeking to block the transaction, despite federal approval. When considering theatrical film distribution, the CMA concluded that the merged entity "would continue to face competition from these three major studios and a range of other smaller studios." At several points, the CMA review considered how other forms of content distribution directly compete with SVOD.  Moreover, in its assessment of linear cable and in particular children's TV channels, the CMA highlighted the competitive constraint from free-to-air channels and children's content available via SVOD, and in relation to the supply of SVOD services, the constraint imposed by broadcast video on demand services and other SVOD suppliers. These conclusions further demonstrate the misguided and gerrymandered market definitions relied upon by the US state AGs in their antitrust complaint in California.