United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Last updated

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 9–11, 1948
Decided May 3, 1948
Full case nameUnited States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. et al.
Citations334 U.S. 131 ( more )
68 S. Ct. 915; 92 L. Ed. 1260; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2850; 77 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 243; 1948 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 62,244
Case history
PriorInjunction granted, 66 F. Supp. 323 (S.D.N.Y. 1946)
Holding
Practice of block booking and ownership of theater chains by film studios constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy  · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge  · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas, joined by Vinson, Black, Reed, Murphy, Rutledge, Burton
Concur/dissentFrankfurter
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Sherman Antitrust Act; 15 U.S.C.   § 1, 2

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, or the Paramount Decision), was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of film studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their movies. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. It also opened the door for more foreign and independent films to be shown in U.S. theaters. The Supreme Court affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's ruling that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of United States antitrust law, which prohibits certain exclusive dealing arrangements. [1]

Contents

The decision created the Paramount Decree, a standard held by the United States Department of Justice that prevented film production companies from owning exhibition companies. [2] The case is important both in American antitrust law and film history. In the former, it remains a landmark decision in vertical integration cases; in the latter, it is responsible for putting an end to the old Hollywood studio system. As part of a 2019 review of its ongoing decrees, the Department of Justice issued a two-year sunsetting notice for the Paramount Decree in August 2020, believing the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings. [3]

Background

The legal issues originated in the silent era, when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating film companies for potential violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright. Thus specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff (under contract), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue.

Ultimately, this issue of the studios' then-alleged (and later upheld) illegal trade practices led to all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice. [2] As the largest studio, Paramount Pictures was the primary defendant, but all of the other Big Five (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and RKO Pictures) and Little Three (Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures, and United Artists) were named, and additional defendants included numerous subsidiaries and executives from each company. [4] Separate cases were also filed against large independent chains, including the 148-theater Schine. [5]

The federal government's case was initially settled in 1940 in the District Court for the Southern District of New York with a consent decree, [6] [7] which allowed the government to resume prosecution if studios were noncompliant by November, 1943. Among other requirements, the District Court-imposed consent decree included the following conditions:

  1. The Big Five studios could no longer block-book short film subjects along with feature films (known as one-shot, or full force, block booking);
  2. The Big Five studios could continue to block-book features, but the block size would be limited to five films;
  3. Blind buying (buying of films by theater districts[ clarification needed ] without seeing films beforehand) would be outlawed and replaced with "trade showing", special screenings every two weeks at which representatives of all 31 theater districts in the United States could see films before theatres decided to book a film; and
  4. The creation of an administration board to enforce these requirements.

The studios did not fully comply with the consent decree. In 1942, they instead, with Allied Theatre Owners, proposed an alternate "Unity Plan". Under the Plan, larger blocks of theatres were blocked with the caveat of allowing theaters to reject films. [8] Consequently, the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers (SIMPP) [8] came into existence and thence filed a lawsuit against Paramount Detroit Theaters, representing the first major lawsuit of producers against exhibitors. The government declined to pursue the Unity proposal and instead, owing to noncompliance with the District Court's binding consent decree, resumed prosecution via the 1943 lawsuit. [9] The 1943 case went to trial on October 8, 1945, one month and six days after the end of World War II. [2] The District Court ruled in favor of the studios, and the government immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case reached the United States Supreme Court in 1948; their verdict went against the movie studios, forcing all of them to divest themselves of their movie theater chains. [1] This, coupled with the advent of television and the attendance drop in movie ticket sales, brought about a severe slump in the movie business.

The Paramount decision is a bedrock of corporate antitrust law and as such is cited in most cases where issues of vertical integration play a prominent role in restricting fair trade.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled 7–1 in the government's favor, affirming much of the consent decree (Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the proceedings). William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion, with Felix Frankfurter dissenting in part, arguing the Court should have left all of the decree intact except its arbitration provisions. [1]

Douglas' majority opinion

Douglas's opinion reiterated the facts and history of the case and reviewed the Supreme Court's opinion, agreeing that its conclusion was "incontestable". [1] He considered five different trade practices addressed by the consent decree:

Douglas let stand the Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement could be considered a restraint of trade, as he agreed they had a legitimate purpose. Pooling agreements and joint ownership, he agreed, were "bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition ... Clearer restraints of trade are difficult to imagine." [1] : 149  He allowed, however, that courts could consider how an interest in an exhibitor was acquired; thus, he remanded some other issues back to the District Court for further inquiry and resolution. He set aside the lower court's findings on franchises so that they might be reconsidered from the perspective of allowing competitive bidding. On the block booking question, he rejected the studios' argument that it was necessary to profit from their copyrights: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration". [1] : 158  The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely.

Frankfurter's concurrence/dissent

Frankfurter took exception to the extent to which his colleagues had agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the underlying facts in affirming the consent decree. He pointed to then-contemporary Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States that lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred to by higher courts. Also, he reminded the (Supreme) Court that the District Court had spent fifteen months considering the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of documentary evidence: "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of discretion." [1] : 180  He would have modified the District Court decision only to permit the use of arbitration to resolve disputes.

Aftermath

The court orders forcing the separation of motion picture production and exhibition companies are commonly referred to as the Paramount Decrees. Paramount Pictures Inc. was forced to split into two companies: the film company Paramount Pictures Corp. and the theater chain (United Paramount Theaters), which merged in 1953 with the American Broadcasting Company.

Consequences of the decision include:

Following the decision, and with the rise of television, the major studios felt that the loss of their exclusive theatre arrangements would reduce the opportunity to re-release products from their extensive film libraries. Paramount, for example, sold its pre-1950 sound feature film library to MCA, which created EMKA (Universal Television) to manage this library. Other studios, such as 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros., also sold or leased their classic back-catalogs to other companies such as Associated Artists Productions or National Telefilm Associates.

By contrast, Walt Disney believed his film library was much more valuable than RKO had estimated it to be. In 1953, he formed a holding company that both held rights to his pre-1953 works and distributed new material from his studio. That company became its own in-house distribution unit, Buena Vista Film Distribution Company, Inc. That move, along with the eventual Walt Disney Company's theme parks and other properties to provide an impetus into television programming (and eventual ownership of ABC in 1996), would provide the company much more revenue and power over the film market, with RKO in its 1948 state eventually dissolving in 1959 among dysfunctional management, and becoming nothing more than a nostalgia trademark and associated film library distributed among several other companies.

Reviews and termination of the Paramount Decrees

In 1980, the United States Department of Justice under President Ronald Reagan began a review of all consent decrees that were more than 10 years old. [11] : 97–98  In 1983, the Department of Justice announced that it was in the "final stages" of reviewing the Paramount Decrees. Eventually, in February 1985, the Department of Justice announced that, although it was not formally terminating the Paramount Decrees, it would no longer pursue enforcement of the decrees in cases where doing so was “in the public interest.” According to media historian Jennifer Holt, "Effectively, this statement dissolved the authority of the decrees, if not legally then practically." [11] : 98 

In April 2018, the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division began a review of antitrust decrees that did not have expiration dates. [12] In 2019, the DOJ sought to terminate the Paramount Decrees, which would include a two-year sunset period as to the practices of block booking and circuit dealing to allow theater chains to adjust. The Department stated it was "unlikely that the remaining defendants can reinstate their cartel" as reasoning for terminating the decrees. [13] The DOJ formally filed its motion for a court order to terminate the decrees on November 22, 2019. [14] The move was opposed by independent movie theater owners, including the Independent Cinema Alliance, and independent filmmakers. [10]

The court granted the DOJ's motion to lift the decrees on August 7, 2020, starting a two-year sunset termination period of the decrees. [3]

Affected assets

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First National Pictures</span> Film production company

First National Pictures was an American motion picture production and distribution company. It was founded in 1917 as First National Exhibitors' Circuit, Inc., an association of independent theatre owners in the United States, and became the country's largest theater chain. Expanding from exhibiting movies to distributing them, the company reincorporated in 1919 as Associated First National Theatres, Inc. and Associated First National Pictures, Inc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paramount Pictures</span> American film studio, subsidiary of Paramount Global

Paramount Pictures Corporation, doing business as Paramount Pictures is an American film and television production and distribution company and the namesake subsidiary of Paramount Global. It is the sixth-oldest film studio in the world, the second-oldest film studio in the United States, and the sole member of the "Big Five" film studios located within the city limits of Los Angeles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Warner Bros.</span> American entertainment company

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is an American film and entertainment studio headquartered at the Warner Bros. Studios complex in Burbank, California, and a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). Founded in 1923 by four brothers, Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner, the company established itself as a leader in the American film industry before diversifying into animation, television, and video games, and is one of the "Big Five" major American film studios, as well as a member of the Motion Picture Association (MPA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Major film studios</span> United States film production and distribution companies with high output

Major film studios are production and distribution companies that release a substantial number of films annually and consistently command the significant share of box office revenue in a given market. In the American and international markets, the major film studios, often known simply as the majors or the Big Five studios, are commonly regarded as the five diversified media conglomerates whose various film production and distribution subsidiaries collectively command approximately 80 to 85% of U.S. box office revenue. The term may also be applied more specifically to the primary motion picture business subsidiary of each respective conglomerate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cinema of the United States</span> Filmmaking industry in the United States

The cinema of the United States, consisting mainly of major film studios along with some independent films, has had a large effect on the global film industry since the early 20th century. The dominant style of American cinema is classical Hollywood cinema, which developed from 1910 to 1962 and is still typical of most films made there to this day. While Frenchmen Auguste and Louis Lumière are generally credited with the birth of modern cinema, American cinema soon came to be a dominant force in the emerging industry. With more than 600 English-language films released on average every year As of 2017, it produced the fourth-largest number of films of any national cinema, after India, Japan, and China. While the national cinemas of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also produce films in the same language, they are not part of the Hollywood system. Because of this, Hollywood has also been considered a transnational cinema, and has produced multiple language versions of some titles, often in Spanish or French. Contemporary Hollywood often outsources production to the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The major film studios of Hollywood are the primary source of the most commercially successful and most ticket-selling movies in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Double feature</span> Exhibition of two films for the price of one

The double feature is a motion picture industry phenomenon in which theatres would exhibit two films for the price of one, supplanting an earlier format in which the presentation of one feature film would be followed by various short subject reels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">El Capitan Theatre</span> Cinema in Hollywood

El Capitan Theatre is a fully restored movie palace at 6838 Hollywood Boulevard in the Hollywood neighborhood in Los Angeles, California, United States. The theater and adjacent Hollywood Masonic Temple is owned by The Walt Disney Company and serves as the venue for a majority of the Walt Disney Studios' film premieres.

A studio system is a method of filmmaking wherein the production and distribution of films is dominated by a small number of large movie studios. It is most often used in reference to Hollywood motion picture studios during the early years of the Golden Age of Hollywood from 1927 to 1948, wherein studios produced films primarily on their own filmmaking lots with creative personnel under often long-term contract, and dominated exhibition through vertical integration, i.e., the ownership or effective control of distributors and exhibition, guaranteeing additional sales of films through manipulative booking techniques such as block booking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Famous Players–Lasky</span> American motion picture company

The Famous Players–Lasky Corporation was an American motion picture and distribution company formed on June 28, 1916, from the merger of Adolph Zukor's Famous Players Film Company—originally formed by Zukor as Famous Players in Famous Plays—and the Jesse L. Lasky Feature Play Company.

United International Pictures (UIP) is a joint venture of Paramount Pictures and Universal Pictures that distributes their films outside the United States and Canada. UIP also had international distribution rights to certain Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and United Artists (UA) films when MGM was part of the venture and also distributed Disney films in certain territories until 1987. In 2001, MGM left UIP, and signed a distribution deal with 20th Century Fox's overseas arm. The company formerly distributed DreamWorks Pictures releases internationally as well until late 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Block booking</span> Historical practice of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit

Block booking is a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Block booking was the prevailing practice in the Hollywood studio system from the turn of the 1930s until it was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948). Under block booking, "independent ('unaffiliated') theater owners were forced to take large numbers of a studio's pictures without knowing much about them. Those studios could then parcel out B movies along with A-class features and star vehicles, which made both production and distribution operations more economical." The element of the system involving the purchase of unseen pictures is known as blind bidding.

National General Corporation (NGC) was a theater chain holding company, film distribution and production company and was considered one of the "instant majors". It was in operation from 1951 to 1974.

A film studio is a major entertainment company that makes films. They may have their own privately owned studio facility or facilities; however, most firms in the entertainment industry have never owned their own studios, but have rented space from other companies. The day-to-day filming operations are generally handled by their production company subsidiary.

Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251 (1946), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court allowing an action to recover compensatory damages under the antitrust statutes. The jury had returned a verdict for $120,000 in petitioner's favor, covering a five-year period where plaintiff suffered due to respondents' antitrust conspiracy. The trial court, sitting in the Northern District of Illinois, gave judgment for treble damages, as prescribed by § 4 of the Clayton Act. The 7th Circuit reversed on the sole ground that the evidence of damage was not sufficient for submission to the jury, and directed the entry of judgment for respondents non obstante veredicto. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the evidence of damage was sufficient to support the verdict. Respondents argued that any measure of damages would be too speculative and uncertain to afford an accurate measure of the amount of the damage. The Supreme Court disagreed, not wanting to let the respondent defeat a remedy because its antitrust violation was so effective and complete. The Court held that the jury could return a verdict for the plaintiffs, even though damages could not be measured with the exactness which would otherwise have been possible, so long as the jury made a "just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data". The judgment of the district court was affirmed and the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Bruckheimer Films</span> American film production company

Jerry Bruckheimer Films Inc. (JBF) is an American independent film production company of Jerry Bruckheimer, formed in 1995, after cutting his ties with film producer Don Simpson before his death in 1996. It produces blockbuster films such as the Pirates of the Caribbean film series.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">RKO Pictures</span> American film production and distribution company

RKO Radio Pictures Inc., commonly known as RKO Pictures or simply RKO, was an American film production and distribution company, one of the "Big Five" film studios of Hollywood's Golden Age. The business was formed after the Keith-Albee-Orpheum theater chain and Joseph P. Kennedy's Film Booking Offices of America studio were brought together under the control of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) in October 1928. RCA executive David Sarnoff engineered the merger to create a market for the company's sound-on-film technology, RCA Photophone, and in early 1929 production began under the RKO name. Two years later, another Kennedy concern, the Pathé studio, was folded into the operation. By the mid-1940s, RKO was controlled by investor Floyd Odlum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney</span> Business acquisition held from 2017 to 2019

The acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company was announced on December 14, 2017, and was completed on March 20, 2019. Among other key assets, the acquisition included the 20th Century Fox film and television studios, U.S. cable channels such as FX, Fox Networks Group, a 73% stake in National Geographic Partners, Indian television broadcaster Star India, and a 30% stake in Hulu. Immediately after the acqusition, the holding company of the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, Fox News Channel, Fox Business, Fox Sports 1 and 2, Fox Deportes, and the Big Ten Network was renamed Fox Corporation. Other 21st Century Fox assets such as the Fox Sports Networks and Sky were divested and sold off to Sinclair and Comcast, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Warner Bros. Pictures</span> American film studio

Warner Bros. Pictures is an American film production and distribution company of the Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group division of Warner Bros. Entertainment. The studio is the flagship producer of live-action feature films within the Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group unit, and is based at the Warner Bros. Studios complex in Burbank, California. Animated films produced by Warner Bros. Pictures Animation are also released under the studio banner.

<i>United States v. AT&T</i> (2019)

United States v. AT&T, 916 F.3d 1029 (2019), was a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which prevented the U.S. government from blocking a merger between AT&T and Time Warner, thus creating the WarnerMedia conglomerate. The court found that regulators were unable to prove harm to consumers per the requirements of United States antitrust law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948).
  2. 1 2 3 "The Hollywood Antitrust Case". 2005.
  3. 1 2 Johnson, Ted (August 7, 2020). "Federal Judge Approves Termination Of Paramount Consent Decrees". Deadline Hollywood . Retrieved August 7, 2020.
  4. ↑ "List of Original Defendants in the Paramount Case". 2005.
  5. ↑ "The Theater Monopoly Cases". 2005.
  6. ↑ "Part 3: The Consent Decree of 1940". 2005.
  7. ↑ "SHOW BUSINESS: Consent Decree". Time. November 11, 1940. Archived from the original on January 5, 2013. Retrieved May 27, 2010.
  8. 1 2 "Independents Protest the United Motion Picture Industry (1942)". 2005.
  9. ↑ "The Government Reactivates the Paramount Case". 2005.
  10. 1 2 Horowitz-Ghazi, Alexi (December 6, 2019). "Why The DOJ Is Concerning Itself With The Old Anti-Trust Paramount Consent Decrees". NPR.org. Retrieved December 28, 2019.
  11. 1 2 Holt, Jennifer (June 1, 2011). Empires of Entertainment: Media Industries and the Politics of Deregulation, 1980-1996. Rutgers University Press. ISBN   978-0-8135-5086-2.
  12. ↑ Shepardson, David (April 25, 2018). "U.S. to seek court approval to terminate 'outdated' antitrust judgments". Reuters . Archived from the original on April 25, 2018. Retrieved April 18, 2024.
  13. ↑ Weprin, Alex (November 18, 2019). "Justice Department Moves to Terminate Paramount Consent Decrees". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved November 18, 2019.
  14. ↑ Maddaus, Gene (November 22, 2019). "Justice Department Goes to Court to Lift Paramount Consent Decrees". Variety . Retrieved November 22, 2019.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.