Paramount has issued a strong response to actor Mark Ruffalo, accusing him of employing “antisemitic tropes” in his criticism of the company’s pending $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. The media giant stated on Friday that Ruffalo’s use of terms like “genocide” and “apartheid” in relation to the corporate transaction was “unhinged” and “a bridge too far."
In a statement, Paramount expressed its concern over the invocation of such language in a business dispute. "Words like ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid,’ applied to a corporate transaction, aren’t just wrong — they’re a bridge too far, and they cheapen the very real suffering those words are meant to describe," the company said.
Ruffalo, known for his role as the Hulk, had shared a video on social media featuring a 2013 clip of former Oracle CEO Safra Catz discussing technology developed for the Israeli military. Ruffalo reportedly commented that these "profoundly scary technologies" would likely be merged into a large media conglomerate and eventually used against the public. He further wrote, "Look how she revels in what we now have come to see as a genocide, which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle." He also characterized Oracle founder Larry Ellison as an "Oligarch" consolidating wealth for power.
Paramount urged that the merger be judged on its legal merits rather than “underlying bias.” The company concluded its statement by asking for “good faith” and expressing hope for “less rhetoric, more understanding,” adding that “Paramount’s future is being written for everyone who wants to make and watch great stories.”
The dispute surfaces as Paramount and Skydance have requested a federal judge to mandate that over a dozen states challenging the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery post a $1.88 billion bond. This bond would cover the costs incurred by delays to the merger. Paramount faces a daily fee of $7 million if the $110 billion deal does not close by September 30.
The states contesting the merger—California, New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington—argue that the acquisition would violate the Clayton Antitrust Act, which prohibits anticompetitive mergers.