By: G. Vaughn Joy (Pro Market)
In November 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began the process of requesting a repeal of the Paramount Decrees. The Paramount Decrees were the result of a 1948 Supreme Court decision in United States vs. Paramount Pictures, Inc. in which the Court ordered the divestment of major studios from their cinemas and established a landmark antitrust decision for the motion picture industry. The Decrees were formally repealed in August 2020 with a sunsetting period of two years, potentially unleashing more problems on an industry already struggling with inequitable resources.
The Paramount Decrees originated with a 1938 lawsuit filed by the DOJ against the major studios, then known as the Big Five (MGM, Paramount, RKO, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Brothers) and the Little Three (Universal, United Artists, and Columbia). According to the DOJ, the Supreme Court found that these studios “had engaged in a wide-spread conspiracy to illegally fix motion picture prices and monopolize both the film distribution and movie theater markets.” This “conspiracy” was functionally known in Hollywood as “vertical integration”, or the Studio System. Vertical integration is a process in which the studios own the production, distribution, and exhibition of their films. In other words, they own the processes of creating, marketing, and screening a film for audiences.
THE DOJ ORDER TO REPEAL THE ANTITRUST DECISION ABANDONED INDEPENDENTS BY ALLOWING ANOTHER CHANNEL OF PROFITS FOR MAJOR STUDIOS AT A TIME WHEN FUNDING FOR INDEPENDENT FILMS IS A CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THE INDUSTRY.
Exhibition was the primary concern for the Supreme Court in their decision-making process, as exhibition was the highest grossing of the three filmmaking processes. The major studios often owned individual theaters in various theater districts or owned theater chains spanning districts. When exhibiting a film, the studios would send it to their cinemas exclusively for their first runs, which invariably were the most profitable releases as marketing, reviews, and word-of-mouth encouraged audiences to see a film in the first weeks of its showing. Films were then sent to subsequent-run cinemas which were either owned by competing studios or independent.
When the Supreme Court handed down the Paramount decisionin May 1948, the eight studios had to sign consent decrees legally binding them to stop monopolistic practices – such as fixed minimum cinema-ticket prices and block-booking – which gave the wealthy studios unfair advantage over competing studios, independent filmmakers, and independent theater owners. The decrees also required them to break ties with their studio-owned picture-houses, though some such as MGM appealed the decision and held out until 1957 before finally signing their decree and selling their cinemas…
Featured News
Google to Challenge Antitrust Ruling; CEO Sundar Pichai Signals Prolonged Legal Battle
Oct 14, 2024 by
CPI
FIFA Faces EU Antitrust Scrutiny Over Expanded Football Calendar
Oct 14, 2024 by
CPI
WhatsApp Faces Potential Antitrust Penalties in India Over Privacy Policy Update
Oct 14, 2024 by
CPI
Croatian Supermarket Chain Tommy Cleared to Acquire Brodokomerc Nova
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
X and Unilever Settle Antitrust Dispute, Continuing Partnership
Oct 13, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh