Warner Bros. Accepts Netflix's $83 Billion Bid, but Antitrust Threats Still Loom
If antitrust regulators allow the deal to go through, consumers stand to benefit from a less expensive Netflix–HBO Max bundle.
Netflix announced its plan to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for $83 billion on Friday. The merger between the entertainment giants will likely draw international antitrust scrutiny, as rival bidder Paramount Skydance ominously predicted in an 11th-hour plea to WBD to reconsider its deal with Netflix. As the deal moves forward, the public should be wary about the political weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Justice Department (DOJ), given the relationship between President Donald Trump and the owners of Paramount Skydance.
Reuters reported that Netflix was considering a bid to acquire WBD in October. Netflix wasn't the only one; Paramount Skydance and Comcast were also vying for the company. Initial bids were submitted by each company on November 20. On December 1, the deadline for second bids, Paramount Skydance drew the all-mighty antitrust saber as it became clear that WBD favored Netflix's bid of $27.75 per WBD share to acquire Warner Bros. studio, HBO, and HBO Max over Paramount Skydance's bid of $30 per WBD share for the entire company.
Paramount Skydance lawyers sent a 4,000-plus-word letter on December 1 to WBD emphasizing that Netflix's acquisition of HBO Max, the fourth-largest streaming video on demand (SVOD) provider, would result in Netflix obtaining a 43 percent share of SVOD subscribers. Whenever market share numbers are tossed around, you can be sure that antitrust concerns are afoot. And that's just the sort of language Paramount Skydance lawyers invoked.
The lawyers asserted that Netflix's deal with WBD "would face grave uncertainty and significant opposition by competition law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad." Jason Kilar, CEO of WarnerMedia from May 2020 to April 2022, when it merged with Discovery to form Warner Bros. Discovery, said he "could not think of a more effective way to reduce competition in Hollywood than selling WBD to Netflix."
The Paramount Skydance lawyers offered a tentative theory of consumer harm from the merger, prognosticating that Netflix's acquisition of "WBD's world-class IP library," which includes Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, and the entire DC Universe, would harm "theatrical distribution, talent and moviegoers [by reducing] the number of films for broad theatrical release." Former Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya affirmed this point, calling the merger "a death knell for movie theaters." At the same time, bundling Netflix and HBO Max "is expected to reduce streaming costs for consumers," reports Reuters.
The letter stated point-blank that Netflix's WBD acquisition "will entrench and extend Netflix's global dominance in a manner not allowed by domestic or foreign competition laws," and anticipated that Netflix's "gerrymandered [SVOD] market definition that includes services like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook" would be rejected by the DOJ, FTC, and international regulators. While competition experts doubt that the European Commission will block the merger, The Hollywood Reporter reports that the DOJ is "planning an investigation and potentially a lawsuit to try and block it, given the potential combination of Netflix and HBO Max."
Political appointees at the DOJ's antitrust division may be encouraged by Trump to scrutinize the deal, given the president's chummy relationship with Larry Ellison, Oracle co-founder and father of Paramount Skydance CEO and majority shareholder David Ellison. However, the merger would not substantially reduce competition when ad-supported video, social media, and gaming are included in the broader entertainment market. Eric Fruits, senior scholar at the International Center for Law and Economics, estimates that the combined Netflix-WBD share of the overall entertainment market could be "less than 5% of total consumer entertainment time."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
The feds should approve the merger on the condition that no ads are allowed in a service that has a subscription price.
And they should force Netflix to get rid of the borderline child porn and grooming content.
What? Never heard that accusation before. But I don't have Netflix.
Look at the controversy surrounding ‘Cuties’, and they have an animated children is series that unambiguously pushes the trans agenda, and is aimed at 7 year olds. It’s called ‘Dead End: Paranormal Park’.
This is just to name a few. There’s more.
I'd forgotten about Cuties.
First Amendment
All that would mean is they get rid of the ad-supported tier and everyone has to pay the ad-free price.
Also why are people so up in arms about ads? Did you not have cable growing up?
Yes, and I had HBO growing up, too. Well, not growing up, but in my early adulthood back in the early 90s... and I specifically paid the HBO fee to not have ads, just like I specifically paid the Netflix and Amazon fees.
It's one thing to pay a basic price to get a high quality signal which carries dozens of networks and/or channels that you simply can't get through the air-- or you can get some through the air but just not in your area, but when you pay a subscription fee to a video service as a premium, that bills itself as broadcasting unedited, uncut movies which are outside the FCC remit for things like nudity, language or themes, why should I get ads?
Garbage buys more garbage.
If they won't allow this - maybe they can find justification to forcibly break up Disney?
Nah, Disney will be the subject of a hostile takeover before too long. They already had to fight off one attempt around a year ago.
Disney is much larger. A more difficult target.
I guess we can look forward to a transgender Superman grooming Harry Potter while Scooby Doo and the Gang pull the mask off Sauron to reveal he's Donald Trump.
You'll be happy to know that the Matrix wasn't an allegory about Christ, it was an allegory about trans.
The movie was made by tranny brothersisters.
Oh, thank goodness the new Stargate show is on Amazon Pride.
I mean, Prime . . .
"a death knell for movie theaters."
I remember movie theaters complaining about competition from television back in the 1960s.
Nothing to worry about for those who love monopolies. Donald said he is going to step in, get involved, to make sure everything is Kosher (taxed)... his fee usually is around 0,1% up to now, but they are inflation pressures thanks to Bitcoin and Etherum bums culture.