Anson Funds Tells Lionsgate: Monetize Your 20,000-Title Library for the AI Era or Sell

Anson Funds Management sent Lionsgate's board of directors a letter in July 2026 arguing that the studio has failed to respond adequately to what AI has done to the entertainment industry. Semafor published the letter's contents on August 11. Lionsgate shares fell 1% to $11.73 on the day of disclosure, the lowest price in four months. The fund has held a position in Lionsgate since 2024 and is one of the studio's five largest independent shareholders.

The letter's core argument, drafted by Anson portfolio manager Sagar Gupta, is direct: "The rise of generative AI has led the market to sort companies bluntly into 'AI winners' and 'AI losers'." Anson's position is that Lionsgate is currently being sorted into the losing column, and the fund wants the board to change that or explore a sale.

The Library Thesis

Lionsgate holds approximately 20,000 film and television titles. That catalog includes the John Wick franchise, the Hunger Games series, the Saw films, Mad Men, Weeds, and Lions Gate Films' catalogue of independent features from the 1990s and 2000s. Anson's letter frames that library as the key asset and argues the studio has not done enough to monetize it for the AI era.

Which AI Models Anson Names

The letter names specific AI video models as direct causes of Lionsgate's stock performance. Sagar Gupta cites Sora and Seedance as the model releases that moved Lionsgate's stock negatively. This is the most specific claim in the letter. The fund names individual models, not a general AI disruption argument.

Lionsgate's shares are up 36% in the year to date as of the August 11 disclosure. They are down 7% in the preceding month. Anson's letter frames that underperformance as evidence of the market's position. AI video generation reduces the addressable market for a studio that sells content rather than tools or infrastructure.

What Lionsgate Has Already Done

The letter does not treat Lionsgate as inactive. It acknowledges the studio's existing AI moves and argues they are insufficient. Lionsgate appointed Kathleen Grace as Chief AI Officer and announced that appointment publicly. The studio partnered with Burns Studio on an AI equity and production strategy. Anson's position is that those moves do not address the core question of whether the library is being monetized at the scale the AI moment demands.

That distinction matters. Anson is not arguing that Lionsgate is asleep. It is arguing that hiring a CAO and signing a production partnership does not constitute an AI strategy at the library level. The library is the asset. The question is whether Lionsgate can structure deals to put it to work for AI training at the scale that would move the stock.

The Sale Argument

If Lionsgate cannot execute that strategy as an independent company, Anson's letter says the board should explore a sale. The fund does not name a buyer. The letter frames a sale not as capitulation but as the mechanism for unlocking the library's value for shareholders.

A sale of Lionsgate would require a buyer willing to pay a premium for the library asset. The buyers with both the capital and the strategic need for a rights cleared library of that scale are large technology companies building AI training pipelines, or major conglomerates looking to expand content holdings. Neither category has publicly indicated interest in Lionsgate specifically.

The letter is a public pressure document. Its function is to move Lionsgate's board to respond on the record, either with a concrete library monetization plan or with an explanation of why a sale is not being pursued. Activist investor letters at studios typically precede a period of engagement at the board level rather than immediate structural change.

What the Stock Move Tells the Industry

Lionsgate's stock fell on the day the Anson letter became public, then recovered modestly. The low of $11.73 reflects a market that has been marking down Lionsgate while marking up studios and platforms with stronger AI positioning.

The specific mechanism Anson describes is AI video generation reducing the addressable market for a content studio's primary product. That is the financial logic the broader industry has been debating in qualitative terms. Anson's letter puts numbers and model names to it. That specificity is what makes the letter more than a standard activist communication.

Whether Lionsgate responds by moving aggressively on library licensing, pursues a sale, or continues its current approach will play out over months. The letter has entered that record as a benchmark: a named investor, a specific thesis, and a specific set of AI models identified as the trigger for the argument.

AI video tools built for professional filmmaking workflows are at AI FILMS Studio.

---

Sources

Semafor | Bloomberg | The Wrap | Deadline | The Hollywood Reporter | The Next Web