In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines whether California’s challenge to the Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger was worth the delay.  A federal court temporarily halted the deal before approving a settlement with twelve states.  The question is whether the challenge helped Hollywood or held back two legacy companies seeking the scale to compete.

Jeremy compares the merger with Disney’s acquisition of Fox, including the difference between a deal’s price and the revenue of the combined company.  He discusses the regional sports networks Disney was required to sell, the size of Disney today, and the competition Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery face from larger media and streaming companies.

California has already lost production spending to other locations.  Jeremy considers what the settlement secured for workers and domestic film production, and whether the state could have obtained those commitments without a prolonged delay.  The episode examines what California must do to keep entertainment jobs and business in the state.  

(Season 8, Episode 39).

Listen as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print behind the biggest topics and most compelling legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports.  The California Sports Lawyer® Podcast is currently ranked among FeedSpot’s top 10 entertainment law podcasts and sports law podcasts and is available on all major platforms.

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines whether California’s challenge to the Paramount Skydance–Warner Bros. Discovery merger secured enough for Hollywood to justify the delay.

It may have been better to usher the deal through sooner while securing deal points that benefit the state and its residents.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

A federal judge’s approval of the settlement on September 30, 2026, has cleared the way for Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery to complete their merger. A previous column examined the business case for combining the companies, while another questioned California’s resistance in a changing media market. The September 30 approval brings a more immediate question: were the commitments California secured for Hollywood worth the delay, or could they have been negotiated sooner?

First, we must remember that jobs at any particular company are not guaranteed and companies are not products or services of the state, government, or political officials. Directors and officers of public companies owe fiduciary duties to their corporations and shareholders, and all employers must follow labor and other laws. Otherwise, these are free enterprises. Where antitrust is concerned, governments can challenge a merger that may substantially lessen competition. Companies are otherwise free to move and change their structures as they see fit. This is why states that do very well financially have welcomed business as opposed to forcing companies to leave through high taxes and overregulation.

Second, the federal government allowed the Disney-Fox deal to proceed in 2018, but only after challenging it and requiring divestitures. Disney’s $71.3 billion acquisition of Fox assets required the sale of 22 regional sports networks, while Paramount’s deal values Warner Bros. Discovery at $110 billion. Although the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery price tag is larger, the combined business is smaller by revenue: $66.1 billion for 2025 compared with approximately $81.5 billion for Disney-Fox in 2018. The regional sports networks accounted for only $4.3 billion of the Disney-Fox figure, leaving $77.2 billion after their removal. Adjusted for inflation, the full Disney-Fox figure is approximately $104.5 billion in 2025 dollars, nearly $40 billion more than Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery combined. Disney itself reported $94.4 billion in 2025 revenue. The figures measure overall company size rather than competition in each market, but deal value and the size of the resulting company are different questions. Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery also do not combine competing regional sports networks as Disney and Fox would have. Both deals reflect the same changing dynamic. Netflix, Disney, and Amazon are formidable competitors in streaming. Paramount+ and HBO Max together would have a better chance to compete at scale. In many ways, the combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery reorders the power structure and allows two legacy companies to compete on a grander scale once again.

Third, the opposition endeavor caused delay and uncertainty even though the case ultimately settled. The federal court’s July 20 ruling found serious antitrust questions at the temporary restraining order stage, including the companies’ projected 27% combined share of wide-release theatrical distribution. That was an interim finding, not a final ruling that the merger was unlawful. By comparison, a Writers Guild submission to the Justice Department put Disney and Fox at 22% and 13% of U.S. and Canadian box-office receipts in 2017, or 35% combined. The 2017 box-office figure and the projected 2026 wide-release distribution figure measure different things, but theatrical concentration was a concern in both deals. The federal remedy in Disney-Fox focused on 22 regional sports networks. Litigation also has costs, although the settlement’s cap of $40 million on reimbursement of the 12 states’ legal and expert expenses does not tell us what taxpayers actually spent. Knowing the history of the Disney-Fox merger and the current political climate, the Attorney General might have been better off negotiating deal points that benefit California residents sooner, instead of fighting to stop a deal that ultimately went forward.

Fourth, there is serious debate around whether the delay actually helped deliver deal points for the State of California, its residents, or the State’s coffers. The Disney-Fox settlement required the sale of 22 regional sports networks. Here, Skydance had already announced plans for at least 30 theatrical films a year, a 45-day theatrical window, and continued investment in both studios. Still, the court-approved settlement goes slightly further: it requires two (2) more films a year (32 total) in years three through five, at least $1.5 billion in additional U.S. production over five years compared with the companies’ combined 2025 spending, $47.5 million for workforce training and arts programs, and $25 million for an independent film fund. It also requires the company to keep the Paramount and Warner studio lots open and provides for monitoring and penalties. The public record does not establish whether the company would have taken the same actions voluntarily, or whether these terms could have been negotiated sooner. That is the question when deciding whether the delay was worthwhile.

In the end, states must stay competitive to attract business. Utopia does not exist on earth and, if it did, it would not exist in a vacuum. Jobs and enterprise are not guaranteed. A person can lose a job as quickly as a company leaves. Under the settlement, Skydance has agreed not to close or sell the Paramount and Warner Bros. California studio lots during the five-year commitment period, but arguably the state has weakened its efforts to fight for business and is instead focused on fighting companies that do not capitulate to high taxes and overregulation. California has already lost ground: IRS migration data show a net $11.9 billion in annual adjusted gross income associated with residents who moved between 2022 and 2023, while the California Film Commission estimates $1.6 billion in potential production spending was lost to other locations from 2020 to 2024. Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Texas, and In-N-Out committed $125.5 million to a Tennessee regional office, although both companies continue to operate in California. The record does not show that a prolonged challenge was necessary to keep these studios in California. It may have been better to usher the deal through sooner while securing deal points that benefit the state and its residents.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

Jeremy M. Evans, CEO and Managing Attorney of California Sports Lawyer®, will speak on the panel “The Future of Sports AI: Building Toward LA28” during LA Tech Week 2026 in Los Angeles.

Presented by Sunstone Management and Pepperdine Graziadio Business School, the event will explore how artificial intelligence is changing athlete performance, fan experiences, sports media, and global engagement as Los Angeles builds toward 2028. The afternoon will also feature SportsTech founder pitches and networking.

Panelists

• Sean Devereaux — Community Engagement Officer, City of Long Beach
• Valtteri (Val) Salomäki — Co-Founder and CEO, EDGE Sound Research
• Jeremy M. Evans — CEO and Managing Attorney, California Sports Lawyer®
• Greg Manly — Technology Sales Consultant, TriNet; Investor Relations Manager, Startup Grind

Moderator

• Jennifer Huang — Director of Marketing and Communications, Sunstone Management

Event Details

• Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2026
• Event time: 2:00 - 5:00 PM
• Panel discussion and audience Q&A: 2:30 PM
• Location: Los Angeles, California; full location provided upon RSVP
• Presented by: Sunstone Management & Pepperdine Graziadio Business School
• Sponsored by: TriNet

Event link: View the event details and RSVP.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines why companies continue developing more capable artificial intelligence systems even as warnings about catastrophic risks grow louder.  AI is already part of daily life, and its use is increasing.  The challenge is to evaluate warnings against evidence while considering the opportunities that innovation can create.

Jeremy discusses the difference between a warning and a credible risk, including what happens when incorrect AI results go unchecked.  The episode explores business incentives, global competition, human oversight, and the concern that relying too heavily on AI could weaken creativity and the value of work.  AI can be a thought partner, but humans must remain the thought leaders.

The discussion also considers independent oversight, testing and disclosure, intellectual property accountability, and when deployment should pause.  AI can make work more efficient and create jobs and opportunities, but its future depends on sound policy, responsible practices, and human control.  

(Season 8, Episode 38).

Listen as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print behind the biggest topics and most compelling legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports.  The California Sports Lawyer® Podcast is currently ranked among FeedSpot’s top 10 entertainment law podcasts and sports law podcasts and is available on all major platforms.

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines warnings that AI could pose a catastrophic threat and argues that human leadership, independent oversight, and evidence should guide innovation as companies race to build more capable systems.

Once humans stop thinking, strategizing, and innovating, that is where any society will fail regardless of whether AI is the catalyst.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is a part of our daily lives. Even if you despise AI, it has an impact on your life either directly through use of applications like streaming music or television choices or indirectly when others you interact with have used a generative AI platform to make a decision or to act as a thought partner. Either way, humans have interacted with AI and its use and acceptance are increasing.

More recently, there has been some backlash against the exponential growth of AI companies and the increasing use of generative AI by humans. There have been calls to slow the development of advanced AI systems and to regulate them. Safety concerns have also been raised, not to mention issues with the creative nature of being human and how AI has the potential to take away human innovation.

While some of the concerns about AI are valid, an Armageddon approach suggesting that AI will bring an end to the world is not the answer. Cruise ship designer John McNeece once famously said, “There is a problem trying to figure out what people want by canvassing them. I mean, if Henry Ford canvassed people on whether or not he should build a motor car, they’d probably tell him what they really wanted was a faster horse.” A logical, systematic approach, with an eye towards the historical record, lessons learned, and future opportunities is more beneficial. Often with innovation, it takes time for regulation and evidence from experiences to develop a pathway to sustainability with technology.

Recent warnings about advanced AI concern the possibility of losing human control over increasingly capable systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Those claims deserve to be tested against evidence and concrete safeguards, even if one disagrees with a doomsday conclusion.

The warnings and credible risk of AI are not necessarily the same. A warning with AI is that it can give incorrect answers. The incorrect answer warning becomes a credible risk when it is left unchecked. There is however a three-pronged approach to using AI, which includes (1) checking your inputs (prompts), (2) checking your outputs (results), and (3) buying the paid version of the generative AI platform you are using. In other words, you must have human involvement and oversight in AI use and policy.

There are also concerns with hallucinations, the gap between those who use AI and those who do not, and the fear that humans will begin to rely on AI to the point where people are no longer creative or want to work or possibly engage with people. One major concern with Elon Musk’s projection that AI will make work optional with universal high income is that work is good for mankind. Work is what brings value, change, and experience. Work is a distinguishing factor, it provides merit, and honestly it keeps people busy and occupied in the healthy sense of avoiding the devil’s playground of an idle workshop. This is where author Geoff Woods’s principle that AI should be a thought partner is important, while distinguishing humans as the thought leader.

Once humans stop thinking, strategizing, and innovating, that is where any society will fail regardless of whether AI is the catalyst. In other words, humans must balance the business incentives of creating AI with policies and best practices. Global competition for AI is growing and the argument is that the country that develops the best AI will control the future economy. Profit also means good governance in planning to make the product or service, earn revenue, and spend or invest that profit for future growth. Companies still compete for customers, capital, and strategic advantage even while their leaders raise safety concerns. The question is whether voluntary safeguards can withstand that pressure.

Safety measures include independent oversight of AI, human control and a bill of rights protecting and ensuring human leadership, accountability to platforms for use of intellectual property, and personal responsibility of humans. Independent oversight should specify what is tested, what results must be disclosed, and when deployment must pause. If policies can be made to address the aforementioned, AI will have a significant and successful future. If policies and best practices are ignored, we are in for a future we would have created ourselves by a lack of policy creation and enforcement. We keep building AI because it can make work more efficient, create new jobs and opportunities, and give people more time to think, strategize, and innovate, but that future requires sound policy, responsible practices, and human control.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines why free television may win the streaming wars. Streaming originally promised lower prices, fewer advertisements, greater consumer control, and easier access to entertainment. Multiple subscriptions, increasing prices, advertising tiers, and fragmented content have gradually recreated many of the disadvantages associated with cable television.

Jeremy discusses how free ad-supported streaming television provides scheduled channels and on-demand programming without requiring another monthly subscription. The episode explores services including Samsung TV Plus, Pluto TV, Tubi, and The Roku Channel, along with the addition of Front Office Sports Tonight to Samsung TV Plus. Additional topics include subscription fatigue, the cost of streaming compared with cable, the separate cost and broader uses of internet service, sports programming, content discovery, advertising revenue, audience data, and privacy.

As entertainment, media, sports, advertising, technology, and law continue converging, the future of television will likely involve a hybrid model combining paid subscriptions, transactional purchases, traditional broadcasting, and free ad-supported platforms. Success will depend on legal and business frameworks addressing content licensing, advertising inventory, audience measurement, data collection, privacy, exclusivity, territorial restrictions, intellectual property, and distribution rights. The streaming wars may ultimately be won by the platforms that give audiences the easiest access and most compelling reasons to watch. 

(Season 8, Episode 37).

Listen as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print behind the biggest topics and most compelling legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports.  The California Sports Lawyer® Podcast is currently ranked among FeedSpot’s top 10 entertainment law podcasts and sports law podcasts and is available on all major platforms.

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines how free ad-supported television could challenge subscription streaming by offering audiences easier access, familiar programming, and lower costs.

The streaming wars may not be won by the streaming platform with the most subscribers. They will be won by the streaming platform that gives audiences the easiest ways and most compelling reasons to watch.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

Streaming fatigue is a concern for many consumers. People are paying too much money for too many platforms to watch the content they want. Finding that content and determining which platform carries it have also become exhausting.

However, an old friend, free television with traditional commercial breaks, has become more popular. It is similar to free, advertising-supported streaming music. Consumers seem to accept commercial breaks if that means paying less.

If we take a look back at the beginning of streaming as an offering, streaming originally offered lower prices, fewer advertisements, and greater consumer control. However, multiple subscriptions, price increases, advertising tiers, and fragmented content have gradually recreated many of cable television’s disadvantages. When streaming becomes as difficult as cable, consumers tend to lean back into paying less for a familiar product.

Free, advertising-supported streaming television, commonly called “FAST”, delivers scheduled channels and on-demand programming without another monthly subscription. Services including Samsung TV Plus, Pluto TV, Tubi, and The Roku Channel combine the familiarity of television with streaming distribution. Audiences receive content without paying a platform subscription fee, while platforms receive advertising revenue and valuable viewing data. The model succeeds when the advertising burden remains reasonable and privacy practices are transparent.

Sports news, highlights, secondary competitions, shoulder programming, and selected live events can attract habitual viewing to keep people coming back. The recent addition of Front Office Sports Tonight to Samsung TV Plus illustrates how sports-business programming can reach viewers nationally without requiring another subscription. To preserve the value of subscription based models, many premium films, series, and major live events remain behind subscription or transactional paywalls. Free television, however, may become the primary vehicle for discovery, mass reach, library programming, news, and everyday viewing.

Streaming remains less expensive than cable when consumers subscribe to only a few services, but the cost advantage begins to disappear as more platforms are added. According to Deloitte’s 2026 Digital Media Trends, the average subscribing household spends $69 per month on streaming video services, while live television services such as YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV cost approximately $83 to $90 per month before Netflix, Max, Peacock, and other subscriptions are added. A collection of the major ad-free streaming services can cost more than $137 per month, placing it near the price of many traditional cable packages after common fees.

Internet service must be considered separately because streaming requires a broadband connection, although assigning the entire internet bill to entertainment would be misleading when households also use that connection for work, education, communication, shopping, and other purposes. The same distinction applied when cable, internet, and landline telephone service were sold together because the bundled bill included three separate household services, not simply the cost of watching television. Consumers comparing the options should therefore examine television charges, equipment costs, promotional rates, and additional fees separately, while using the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband consumer labels to evaluate the price and terms of internet service.

The future of watching content on television or mobile phones is likely a hybrid model. People will go where the best content is located. From a legal perspective, agreements must address content licensing, advertising inventory, audience measurement, data collection, exclusivity, territorial restrictions, intellectual property, and distribution rights. The streaming wars may not be won by the streaming platform with the most subscribers. They will be won by the streaming platform that gives audiences the easiest ways and most compelling reasons to watch.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines what happens when audiences become investors in films and entertainment companies. Through investment models offered by companies such as Legion M, fans may purchase company stock, participate in a film fund, or invest directly in individual projects when those opportunities are available. These investments can deepen the relationship between audiences and entertainment while creating financial opportunities, securities law obligations, and the risk of loss.

Jeremy discusses how fan investment differs from traditional film financing and donation based or reward based crowdfunding. The episode also explores Legion M’s involvement in the theatrical release of Coyote vs. Acme, the use of audience capital to support the distribution of completed films, and the importance of disclosures, audit rights, recoupment provisions, revenue definitions, and payment waterfalls. Additional topics include creative control, fan ambassadors, access to financing, and how creators may reach audiences before securing representation while still benefiting from representation once opportunities emerge.

As entertainment, finance, technology, intellectual property, and law continue converging, fan investment may complement traditional financing and create new paths for filmmakers and audiences. Responsible growth will require compliance with securities laws, clear explanations of investment risks, transparent offering terms, and realistic expectations about financial returns and creative authority. Fan financing can lower the barrier to entry for creating entertainment while allowing experienced representatives, producers, distributors, and other professionals to add value as projects develop. 

(Season 8, Episode 36).

Listen as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print behind the biggest topics and most compelling legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports.  The California Sports Lawyer® Podcast is currently ranked among FeedSpot’s top 10 entertainment law podcasts and sports law podcasts and is available on all major platforms.

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines how fan investment is moving audience participation to the beginning of film financing and creating new opportunities for filmmakers, investors, and entertainment newcomers.

Fan investment can lower the barrier to entry for creating entertainment, potentially allowing creators to reach audiences and attract financing without first securing representation. Representation can then add value once the creator is inside the proverbial room.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

Legion M has a novel business model. Through its investment offerings, fans can purchase stock in the company, invest in its Film Fund, or invest directly in individual films when those opportunities are available. These offerings allow fans to support financially the entertainment they want to see developed, produced, and distributed.

The opportunity is reminiscent of Green Bay Packers fans purchasing shares in the franchise. Packers shares are actual common stock, but they do not pay dividends and are generally purchased as an expression of support rather than for financial return. Legion M investments, by comparison, may provide a financial return but also carry the risk of loss. Certain direct film investments may include benefits such as having the investor’s name attached to the credits. In some ways, the model allows fans to participate in the physical production and distribution of entertainment, just as someone might use generative artificial intelligence to create content.

Traditionally, films are financed through a combination of studios, equity investors, lenders, distributors, tax incentives, and corporate partners. Some A-list actors invest in their own films and series or in projects they believe will be successful with audiences and/or tell a story that they are passionate about. Depending on the offering, Legion M investors may invest in the company, an individual production, or the distribution of completed films. This allows Legion M to seek audience support before a project is created or, through the Film Fund, before a completed film is distributed.

Legion M partnered with Ketchup Entertainment to support the theatrical release of Coyote vs. Acme, which had earned an estimated $47.8 million domestically through September 13, 2026. The Film Fund allocation for the movie sold out in less than 48 hours. This form of fan investment differs from donation-based or reward-based crowdfunding because fans contribute capital with the possibility of receiving a financial return, but they also accept the possibility of losing their investment. Under the Legion M Film Fund, investors purchase an interest in the release of finished films. Investors receive a portion of sales revenue until they recover their principal and a predetermined return, subject to the offering terms and investment risk.

The audience becoming a part of the business through financing is important because it allows fans to feel further connected to the film or television project. It also allows people outside the entertainment industry to invest. Fans can become ambassadors for a project because they have both an emotional and financial interest in its success.

Fan investors should be aware that an investment does not guarantee success. An investment also does not provide creative control unless the offering or another agreement expressly grants that authority. Audit, recoupment, and payment provisions are important because distributors, lenders, production and marketing expenses, and other participants may be paid first. The definitions of revenue and profits, along with the payment waterfall, may be among the most important contractual provisions in Hollywood film financing.

This audience-focused film financing model complements traditional film financing and is unlikely to replace it at this point. Studios, producers, and others involved in audience fundraising must explain investment risks clearly and comply with applicable securities laws and offering requirements. Securities laws, disclosures, and clearly written contractual terms are needed when audiences are asked to invest. A larger investor base may also create administrative and communication obligations even when investors do not receive creative control.

The audience has always financed entertainment through tickets, subscriptions, advertising attention, and purchases. Fan investment moves some of that financial participation to the beginning of the process, creating opportunities for filmmakers and audiences. Alternative financing can also give startups and entertainment newcomers another opportunity to succeed. It can lower the barrier to entry, which should be applauded, for creating entertainment, potentially allowing creators to reach audiences and attract financing without first securing representation. Representation can then add value once the creator is inside the proverbial room.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines whether prediction markets and sports betting platforms are good partners with sports leagues. As leagues enter sponsorship, licensing, official data, and integrity agreements with wagering businesses, the financial opportunities are apparent. These relationships also raise moral, legal, and governance questions involving competitive integrity, parity, consumer protection, participant conduct, and public trust.

Jeremy discusses how prediction markets differ from traditional sportsbooks and why markets regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission remain subject to challenges from state gaming regulators. The episode also explores Major League Baseball’s partnership with Polymarket, the U.S. Open’s partnership with Kalshi, and the tension created when sports organizations profit from wagering while disciplining players and other participants for betting. Additional topics include proposition bets, the misuse of nonpublic information, promotional credits, gambling addiction, personal responsibility, and Pete Rose’s eligibility for consideration by the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

As sports, wagering, finance, technology, and law continue converging, responsible growth will require clear restrictions, information sharing, monitoring, education, and meaningful enforcement. Success will depend on legal and business frameworks addressing official data, intellectual property, market types, participant conduct, consumer safeguards, and the respective authority of federal and state regulators. Prediction markets and betting platforms can be good partners only when the commercial relationship serves the sport without compromising the integrity of the competition.

(Season 8, Episode 35).

Listen as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print behind the biggest topics and most compelling legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports. The California Sports Lawyer® Podcast is currently ranked among FeedSpot’s top 10 entertainment law podcasts and sports law podcasts and is available on all major platforms.

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines whether prediction markets and sports betting platforms are good partners for sports leagues. The financial benefits are apparent, but these partnerships raise moral and governance questions involving competitive integrity, consumer protection, and public trust. The analysis considers how leagues can profit from wagering businesses while disciplining players and other participants for betting.

Integrity and parity are foundational to sports. Without integrity and parity, sports would feel empty and scripted.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

What is it about the human condition that makes enough never enough? Why is it that, after name, image, and likeness (NIL) laws were passed and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) changed its rules to allow college athletes to receive compensation from their NIL, college athletics developed revenue sharing systems administered by schools? Why is it that, after the United States Supreme Court held the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) unconstitutional in Murphy v. NCAA in 2018 and returned authority to the states to decide whether to legalize sports betting, professional sports leagues used the opportunity to broker sponsorship deals?

In ancient Greek and Roman societies, laurel leaves, commonly used in wreaths and headwear, carried religious and cultural significance. When Augustus restricted Roman triumphs and their laurel wreaths to the imperial family, the wreath became even more closely associated with exclusivity, status, and authority. Research on psychological reactance supports the broader point that restricting access can make something more desirable, just as outlawing prediction markets and sports betting may increase curiosity and demand rather than eliminate either.

The easy answer would be that business is business. The next easiest answer would be greed. A third answer might be a lack of foresight.

The question of whether prediction markets and sports betting platforms are good for professional sports leagues, teams, owners, or managers requires a much deeper analysis. Financially, prediction markets and betting platforms can clearly benefit sports organizations. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Integrity and parity are foundational to sports. Parity means a reasonable degree of competitive balance among teams or participants. Without integrity and parity, sports would feel empty and scripted. Many fans watch sports year after year because of their love for a team and the hope that their team might win. “This is our year,” a fan might say. On the other hand, sports are a form of entertainment, and this author has often heard fans say, “It is all scripted anyway,” or, “That player definitely took the points to cover.” A point spread is the projected margin of victory used to determine the outcome of certain wagers. Right or wrong, sports betting violations involving athletes and coaches have received substantial media coverage.

A prediction market allows participants to buy and sell contracts whose value depends on the outcome of a future event. A traditional sports betting platform accepts wagers under state gaming laws and establishes odds for possible outcomes. Sports event prediction markets are similar to sports betting from the consumer’s perspective, except that platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket US operate through designated contract markets rather than solely through sports betting systems licensed by individual states. A designated contract market is an exchange authorized and regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency that oversees United States derivatives markets.

The legal distinction remains contested because state regulators argue that sports event contracts are sports wagering subject to state gaming laws, and courts have reached different preliminary conclusions. Competition between the two business models can be better for consumers, but is increased access good for habitual bettors or other vulnerable consumers? What protections are prediction markets and betting companies instituting to guard against impropriety on the court and harm in the homes or on the phones of consumers?

The regulatory distinction was previously examined in Owning Probability and Betting Under Federal Oversight. Last week’s column discussed the role of government in decisions and policies involving social media, children, and parents. A similar question arises here. There are also questions of morality, personal responsibility, and the importance of sound policy.

PASPA went too far by prohibiting states from authorizing sports wagering, which violated the anti-commandeering principle of the United States Constitution. The anti-commandeering principle generally prevents the federal government from directing state legislatures to enact or maintain particular laws. The Supreme Court’s decision did not require states to legalize sports betting; it allowed each state to decide whether and how to authorize it. However, is opening every avenue through mobile applications, websites, and physical locations a good idea for prediction markets and sports betting?

Is gambling similar to alcohol regulation, including Prohibition, or is it more like a personal contract in which people choose their own destiny and accept responsibility until someone else is harmed or the contract is breached? Prohibition was the national constitutional ban on the production, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 until its repeal in 1933. Ideally, laws will establish boundaries for what is allowed and where. Laws should not determine morality alone, but they can establish standards based on public safety and a shared set of moral values.

The model in this world is imperfect, no matter the circumstances. Major League Baseball (MLB) has partnered with Polymarket, and the U.S. Open has partnered with Kalshi. At the same time, sports governing bodies discipline participants for betting, making these developments interesting and ripe for reflection. MLB and the U.S. Open are therefore not merely observing the growth of prediction markets; they are entering commercial relationships with them.

There are similar models in which a team might have a sponsorship with Budweiser while a player who appears at a game intoxicated or is involved in a car crash or arrested for driving under the influence may violate laws and league policies. Such conduct could also affect the player’s performance and the outcome of a game. However, there is a difference between a participant manipulating an outcome connected to a proposition bet or event contract and a participant violating an unrelated law. A proposition bet, commonly called a prop bet, is a wager on a specific event or individual performance within a game rather than solely on the final result.

Intentionality may be important, but arguably more important is the fact that sports may be entertaining, but they are beautiful and loved because they are unscripted. In other words, sports are entertaining but are not entertainment in the traditional sense. Sports betting and prediction markets without adequate oversight can push sports toward entertainment as a construct because the financial product depends on the outcome. This concern was previously discussed in When Betting Becomes the Broadcast, Who Is to Blame—Leagues, Media, or Players?.

Hit King Pete Rose might be smirking right now. Rose later acknowledged betting on the Cincinnati Reds to win while managing the team, but he bet on his own team nonetheless. Major League Baseball removed Rose and other deceased individuals from its permanently ineligible list in May 2025, making him eligible for Hall of Fame consideration but not automatically granting him induction. Does that mean his conduct should continue to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, or should he be treated like athletes who used performance-enhancing drugs? Arguably, removing history is never a good idea, but telling the truth about what happened while noting the accomplishments is human.

The answer likely lies in the space between the free will of individuals, the responsibility of platforms to avoid improper inducements or deceptive practices, and programs designed to help people who suffer from gambling addiction. Prediction markets and betting companies should carefully consider whether account credits, bonuses, or purportedly free money improperly encourage gambling. Balance is key: encourage free enterprise, protect vulnerable consumers, and preserve the integrity of sports.

These are difficult questions. Policy can provide a path forward. They are nonetheless questions worth discussing and answering.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans examines whether government or parents should decide how children use social media. A court-approved settlement between Meta and a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general establishes new protections for users under 18, including default time limits, overnight restrictions, school-hour notification controls, age-assurance measures, and expanded parental tools.

Jeremy discusses how the settlement balances platform accountability and child protection against parental authority and family autonomy. The episode also explores the use of litigation and consent judgments to establish rules affecting millions of families, the influence of default settings, privacy concerns surrounding age-assurance technology, and whether government-backed protections may become permanent controls in practice.

As social media, technology, privacy, public policy, and law continue converging, protecting children will require responsible product design, truthful disclosures, meaningful parental tools, and accountability for unlawful conduct. Success will also depend on legal frameworks addressing data collection, age assurance, parental consent, platform features, transparency, and clear limits on government authority while preserving parents as the principal decision-makers in their children’s lives. 

(Season 8, Episode 34).

Listen in as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print on the biggest topics and most interesting legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports law. The top entertainment, media, and sports podcast is streaming on all major platforms!

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans argues that protecting children online should strengthen parental authority, not make the government the primary decision-maker over how children use social media.

People often do not read the fine print or adjust available features, which means a rule described as a default may become permanent in practice.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

Protecting children from potentially addictive technology is a legitimate parental and public interest. However, when a court-approved settlement with Meta establishes default limits on when and how teenagers may use social platforms, which features they may see, and when parents must intervene to change those settings, child protection begins to resemble government-directed parenting. That development should concern parents and make public officials, legislators, and courts wary of imposing similar controls without careful consideration of parental choice and family autonomy.

Meta entered into a court-approved settlement with a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general representing 52 U.S. jurisdictions, resolving claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed in ways that encouraged compulsive use by minors and that Meta misrepresented the associated risks. Without admitting wrongdoing, Meta agreed to implement new protections for users under 18 and to make payments over ten years. The agreement provides for approximately $12.7 billion in payments, with another approximately $5.3 billion contingent on TikTok and YouTube implementing specified protections and making corresponding payments.

The new protections include a default two-hour daily limit that applies cumulatively across Facebook and Instagram, restricted access between midnight and 6:00 a.m., muted notifications during school hours, stronger age-assurance measures, and expanded parental controls. Parents may override the Time Limit and Night Mode restrictions. Direct messaging is excluded from the Time Limit, Night Mode, and School Mode requirements so teenagers may continue communicating with friends and family.

There are three primary concerns with the Meta settlement. The first is that it establishes government-backed defaults affecting parental choice. Although parents retain the ability to change certain settings, defaults are influential. People often do not read the fine print or adjust available features, which means a rule described as a default may become permanent in practice.

The second concern is that these controls arose through litigation and settlement rather than legislation debated and enacted by elected representatives. The settlement process is lawful, and the resulting agreement received court approval. Nevertheless, using litigation to establish detailed platform rules affecting millions of families deserves careful scrutiny, transparency, and public discussion.

By pursuing litigation against Meta, government officials have influenced the rules governing minors’ use of social media. Government regulation intended to protect children is not new, but using a multistate settlement to establish detailed digital-platform restrictions presents a newer form of intervention. Ideally, parents should decide how, when, and where their children engage with social media.

Schools and teachers also exercise supervisory authority over students during school hours, including the authority to establish reasonable classroom technology policies. Those efforts should be applauded when they support education and student well-being. That school-based authority, however, is limited in time and purpose, just as government authority should be.

The third concern is whether this intervention will lead to broader controls. Once the government uses litigation or legislation to regulate lawful decisions within private family life, the boundaries matter. A measure justified as a narrow safety protection can become a precedent for wider controls. That possibility does not make every intervention improper, but it requires defined limits, transparency, public debate, and continued respect for parental authority.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that society has reached a point where social media use may become so compulsive that government intervention appears necessary. Whether Meta intentionally encouraged addictive behavior remains disputed. The lawsuit alleged that Meta designed features that drove excessive use, collected and used data belonging to children under 13, and misled users and families about platform safety. Parents cannot independently redesign recommendation systems, inspect internal company research, or control the architecture of a global platform. Government therefore has a legitimate role in enforcing laws against deceptive practices and unlawful conduct.

It is also true that many social media platforms operate through an advertising-supported business model. When access appears free, users provide the attention and data that make the platform valuable. Social media companies use activity and inferred interests to sell targeted advertising access. Companies such as Google and Meta derive substantial revenue by connecting advertisers with audiences while providing content and opportunities for human interaction.

Protecting minors should not quietly normalize government control over family decisions and social interaction. Government can require truthful disclosures, meaningful parental tools, appropriate safeguards, and accountability for unlawful conduct. Parents, however, should remain the principal decision-makers regarding their children’s daily social media use.

Parents and all users must also remain diligent about their own social media habits. What we watch, read, and spend time with shapes us. The goal should be to protect children by empowering parents, not to make government the permanent author of a family’s digital rules.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this episode of the California Sports Lawyer® Podcast, host Jeremy Evans is joined by veteran broadcast journalist, moderator, and content creator Dave Briggs. Currently a co-host of Connecting America and Sanity with Alisyn & Dave, Dave has spent more than 25 years across Fox News, CNN, NBC Sports, Turner Sports, Yahoo Finance, and Cheddar Business News. His career has included seven Olympic Games, a dozen Super Bowls, March Madness, and an appearance as an ATN news anchor in HBO’s Succession.

Jeremy and Dave discuss the business behind television news and sports programming, including how corporate priorities, editorial decisions, audience expectations, and economic incentives influence what viewers see on screen. They also consider what Succession captured about corporate media, editorial pressure, and the relationship between news and business.

The conversation examines the movement of sports rights among broadcast networks, cable channels, streaming services, and direct-to-consumer platforms. Jeremy and Dave explore where leverage is shifting and the next major legal and business fault lines in college athletics following NIL, athlete compensation, and revenue sharing.

Jeremy and Dave also discuss how artificial intelligence can improve journalism and sports production while preserving human judgment, transparency, privacy, and consent. As media professionals increasingly become independent creators, they examine how ownership of intellectual property, audience data, sponsorship rights, and distribution can give talent greater control over their careers and businesses.

(Season 8, Episode 33).

Listen in as award-winning attorney and industry leader Jeremy Evans navigates the fine print on the biggest topics and most interesting legal angles in entertainment, media, and sports law. The top entertainment, media, and sports podcast is streaming on all major platforms!

Listen to the Episode.

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

About Bleav:

Bleav is a premier audio and video network that produces, distributes, and sells sports and lifestyle content. With more than 500 shows, Bleav reaches audiences across major podcast platforms, YouTube, social media, regional sports television networks, streaming video services, and FAST TV. The network helps hosts distribute and monetize their programs while connecting fans with a diverse range of sports and lifestyle content.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans discusses how Nielsen’s new co-viewing technology could reshape audience measurement, advertising, sponsorships, and media-rights deals in sports broadcasting.

Accurate data also helps establish contract terms and determine whether those terms have been satisfied when payment depends on viewership performance.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

~

When audiences watch sports, most of what is being experienced is localized. Meaning, people tend to watch live sports with friends, colleagues, or other fans. Sometimes, a live sports broadcast is watched alone, in a restaurant, with family, on a traditional cable channel, through a streaming platform, or even through a live television service like YouTube TV or on social media.

What has become harder to track is the number of people watching when groups are involved. Whether it is two people or fifty, current tracking systems are not always accurate, and they definitely do not identify all the viewers who are watching. One might be thinking: Who cares?

Well, people watching a live entertainment broadcast or any type of programming should care because, generally, the more people who watch, the more money is spent on advertising to reach those audiences. In a sense, more people watching means easier access and lower prices. Exclusivity usually means higher prices, fewer people watching, and more barriers to entry.

Nielsen is one of the top companies measuring audience viewership. In an age when people often watch content on multiple devices and across a variety of streaming, broadcast, and social media platforms, there is an even greater need for accurate viewership data. Viewership numbers also help during awards season in entertainment, media, and sports. Accurate data also helps establish contract terms and determine whether those terms have been satisfied when payment depends on viewership performance.

Nielsen’s new co-viewing technology uses proprietary wrist-worn devices resembling smartwatches to capture audio from television programming and passively determine what panelists are watching without requiring them to log in formally. Nielsen incorporates that information into its Big Data + Panel system, which combines representative household panels with data from set-top boxes, smart televisions, and participating streaming services. In a pilot involving major live events, the technology produced an average 4.19% increase in measured viewers. Nielsen is not creating a new audience. It is using technology to count viewers who are already present but are often invisible to the traditional ratings system.

A 4.19% increase may sound modest, but the number becomes meaningful when applied to a major sports broadcast. An audience previously measured at 10 million viewers could include approximately 419,000 additional viewers. At that scale, better measurement can affect advertising rates, audience guarantees, sponsorship value, and the price paid for media rights. When billions of dollars are committed to sports broadcasting, the difference between the audience being present and the audience being counted matters.

The technology does not solve every measurement problem. Nielsen’s wearable devices are used by panelists inside the home, meaning that audiences watching in restaurants, bars, stadiums, and other public spaces still present separate measurement challenges. Viewing through social media and emerging platforms can also produce different types of data. The goal is not to rely on one perfect number, but to understand how the number was produced, what it includes, and what may still be missing.

This means that lawyers, talent, and businesses should be aware of this technology and make sure the terms they are agreeing to or trying to secure actually make sense for them and their goals. This is where an audit provision in the agreement could help enforce the terms and conditions. Everyone should applaud the availability of better technology to show viewership numbers, as it means better deals and a better understanding of the marketplace. Everyone should equally give pause to the privacy of individuals.

One of the benefits of Nielsen’s panel-based ratings system is that participation is voluntary. People can choose to participate or not. On the other hand, some marketing and advertising tools can be deemed mandatory or essential tools. Be aware of the settings on your devices and adjust them accordingly. In the meantime, the new data will help dealmakers make more deals.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in transactional matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property, with a focus on dealmaking. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.

Copyright © 2026. California Sports Lawyer®. All Rights Reserved.