u/it-s-luminescent

>Netflix said it will expand the availability of "I'm Solo" to overseas markets this year. The program is currently available on Netflix only in Korea, although it is also offered through other streaming platforms — including Rakuten Viki — in different markets.

>Specific regions and the exact release date have yet to be announced, but Netflix confirmed that the show will be available in Asia and the Americas. English subtitles will be provided, with additional language support expected to be added alongside the overseas rollout.

>The show's popular spinoff, "I'm Solo, Love Continues," which features former "I'm Solo" contestants who either failed to find a match on the original series or found love but later broke up, is not currently included in Netflix's overseas streaming plans.

(I hope Kocowa doesn't lose rights to air I Am Solo. One of my favorite, understated parts of IAS is their background music, music cues. Once it streams on Netflix, there's a high chance that all that BGM will be edited out. Or if they can't/won't edit the music out, they'll just cut out the scene. Kocowa somehow avoids/ignores all the int'l music copyright issues, which I selfishly prefer.)

(p.s. To our lovely IAS mods, the new tags don't seem to be available for new posts right now. Are the tags set on "mod only" or something like that?)

Today, about an hour from now as I type, the bell rings in the states' antitrust suit against PSKY + WBD as they argue for and against the granting of a TRO.

The states, who sought the TRO, filed first. Memo here.

Then PSKY responded. Memo here.

These filings give some possible insights into how the rest of the case might be argued.

I've roughly read both memos, and what strikes me first is the difference in tone between each side.

The States' memo is measured, methodical, and well-organized. The arguments are made simply and systematically supported with citations of precedent. The way they marry facts and law is clear and pleasantly readable.

In contrast, PSKY's memo comes across a tad bit too emotional. Sure, they cite precedent too. But they speak too often in hyperbole and grand absolutes, which undermines their case imo. Especially when some of those absolutes are untrue or misleading. .

In PSKY's memo there's repeated:

"Plaintiffs do not - and cannot -" (!)

"There is no evidence" (!)

"Plaintiffs fail/ignore [...]"

Actually, more often than not, plaintiff states can and do(!) describe evidence, and plaintiffs don't ignore the point in question. PSKY just seems to disagree with what the States are saying. But in these instances, instead of countering it in a more cogent, pointed way, PSKY chooses to lean into what comes across as emotional flailing.

Meanwhile, the States use more measured language like:

"The balance of equities also favors Plaintiff States"...

...while making a substantial argument for their case. I find it way more persuasive. Tho, the only person's opinion who matters really is the judge.

---------------------------------------

Also, a couple points that stood out.

The States are challenging the merger as being anti-competitive in certain markets connected to THEATRICAL & CABLE. The States are NOT challenging the merger on the basis of streaming.

Nevertheless, PSKY starts the substance of their memo talking about STREAMING.

PSKY argues they need to this merger to compete in streaming.

But the Plaintiff States anticipated this, of course, and already handled and cleared this argument in their memo which was filed first.

States shoot down PSKY's streaming argument in advance.

>"anticompetitive effects in one market [cannot] be justified by procompetitive consequences in another"

>"[A] merger that substantially decreases competition in one place - injuring consumers there - is not saved because it benefits a separate group of consumers by creating competition elsewhere."

Whatever effect the acquisition would have on the streaming market it cannot legally repair any harm it would do to theatrical and/or cable. Established case law supports this.

---------------------------------------

And then, there's that TICKING FEE that PSKY has to pay WBD if the acquisition is delayed.

Paramount mentions it as a basis for wrapping up this case quickly

But, the plaintiff AGs pre-emptively addressed the pressure of that ticking fee in their filing.

From the States' Memo

The states argue:

- In their merger agreement, PSKY + WBD already forecast that the merger didn't need to close until June 2027. (Why the rush now?)

- PSKY already took the ticking fee into account when assessing merger costs

Case law says: "Self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury."

- The ticking fee is a self-inflicted injury. It's bad public policy to allow parties to a contract to write in self-inflicted harm to coerce an outcome.

You can't force an illegal contract by saying if you don't let us close I'm going to hold my breath financially penalize myself.

-------------------------------------

There are other weird objections that PSKY makes.

Like complaining that the States used the 2023 Merger Guidelines instead of using the older 2010 Merger Guidelines.

PSKY should've left that part out, even if the numbers in the 2010 MG are slightly less unfavorable to them. Ignoring the updated guidelines to cherry pick more favorable ones is silly. Why not go back to the 1990s or 1980s??

It's stuff like that that gives off the whiff of desperation.

The guest is Emily Glazer, Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist at The Wall Street Journal, who broke the story this week of how Ellison funneled a $45 million donation to Trump in 2024 (and many millions following that) which granted him deeper access into Trump's inner circle.

WSJ link

non-paywall link

Some random, incomplete notes from the podcast:

- Larry's currently the 6th richest man in the world at $210 billion. (Bet dropping from #1 down to the bottom half of the top ten burns the old man up)

- PSKY trying to sell that David Ellison (son) is running the WarnerMount show, but Larry (the dad) is, if not the puppeteer, a big & powerful voice steering this deal.

- Larry is not only the money man, but has a genuine friendship (with business benefits) bond with Donald Trump. They like spending time with each other. They're both in their 80s and share a similar worldview.

- Trump makes fun of other billionaire grovelers like Bezos & Zuckerberg, but not Larry Ellison. Trump genuinely likes him.

- They talk on the phone all the time. Larry changed his official residence from Hawaii to Florida, moving 20 minutes south of Mar-a-Lago (so he can worship at the altar of Trump as much as possible)

- Glazer believes they were on the phone a lot, talking in depth about PSKY & WBD when merger negotiations were going down.

- They bond over their mutual hatred of mainstream media. In his heyday, Larry used to get a lot of negative press, and he still holds a grudge.

- Matt Belloni suspects Larry thinks of a Donald as a useful idiot, especially since Larry supported Marco Rubio in 2016 Republic pres. primary and Tim Scott in 2024, before switching to Trump. Even supporting Bill Clinton back in the 1990s.

- But Glazer insists that he genuinely likes him, and the friendship is real.

- For Larry, supporting WarnerMount is more about building a new media empire (along with Oracle + Tiktok). Less about supporting his son personally.

- Larry gave only as much money as was necessary to see the deal through, and not a penny more. (Then made his son beg for the bulk of the funding from the Gulf States)

- Being best buds with Trump has gotten Larry access to whole new areas of business. Something Larry/ORCL has avoided before. Trump helped Larry get TikTok, become a key player in the Stargate AI project, all kinds of deals that probably wouldn't happened but for the Trump connection.

- Back in 2025, son David Ellison's company Skydance was trying to buy Paramount. Merger approval was going nowhere, while Trump was suing CBS/Paramount (over some 60 Minutes/Kamala Harris interview bullshit).

- During that time, David Ellison (son) met Trump at a UFC event. David came back from that, called a member of Paramount's Board of Directors, pushing Paramount to settle Trump's lawsuit. David told her they'd need to pay up $49.6 million. (Remember this is before PSKY came into formation. David & Skydance were still a separate company)

- The Paramount director kinda freaked out, said David shouldn't be talking to her about this. She went & told Paramount's lawyers & board about the conversation.

- Nevertheless, a few months later, Paramount settled the Trump lawsuit for $16 million & the PSKY merger got approved.

- Glazer says Larry, via his phone conversations with Trump, influenced DOJ's decision to launch a probe into Netflix's supposed anti-competitive tactics while NFLX was trying to acquire WBD.

- Glazer thinks if the Democrats return to power, it's not just the PSKY+WBD deals that'll be under scrutiny but all the other deals that have been rushed through under Trump's DOJ. But she thinks the Democrats have to get their act together first in order to actually do something.