Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Paramount-WBD Deal: Antitrust, Consumers, and the Future of Media

Opinion

Paramount-WBD Deal: Antitrust, Consumers, and the Future of Media
a remote control sitting in front of a television
Photo by Pinho . on Unsplash

After much speculation, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) finally announced that the media giant is for sale. Given the company’s reach, there will be government hurdles to clear that, in part, will examine the many effects and implications for consumers. All points to be considered initially by Warner Bros. shareholders and its board.

Among the rumored suitors are Amazon, Netflix, Comcast, and Paramount Skydance—with the last one offering a more realistic, regulation-friendly path forward that also makes sense for a wide array of audiences.


In today’s climate, any major merger faces intense scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Amazon, Netflix, and Comcast each present steep antitrust hurdles. Paramount Skydance, by contrast, offers a smoother path, and reports indicate it has the backing of the Trump administration.

By comparison, acquisitions by the incumbent media giants would only deepen an already troubling concentration of power. Amazon, Netflix, and Comcast together already command vast shares of the streaming and broadband markets. Allowing any of them to absorb WBD would further erode competition and consumer choice.

Among the substantive reasons why the Trump Team appears favorable to Paramount is that a Paramount Skydance–WBD merger would expand competition across streaming, news, and sports. In streaming alone, combining Paramount+ and HBO Max would create a platform with roughly 200 million subscribers—a credible challenger to Amazon Prime Video’s 200 million and Netflix’s 300 million. Bolstering a new, upstart competitor like Paramount Skydance could stabilize pricing, spur competition, and drive new investment in quality programming.

In terms of news programming, uniting CBS and CNN could create a partnership akin to NBC and MSNBC, adding to the media landscape. This combination could appeal to the President and his regulators, with CBS reportedly shifting to bring more ideological diversity to the national media.

The timing is crucial, as a WBD deal would come as major tech players such as Apple, Amazon, and Google/YouTube are continuing to expand their presence in entertainment. Increased consolidation across the industry has drawn heightened regulatory attention. Amazon’s current legal challenges illustrate just how complex that path could be.

Amazon was recently embroiled in a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 17 state attorneys general accusing the company of using anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly—including through Prime Video. A recent $2.5 billion FTC settlement over allegedly deceptive Prime sign-up tactics underscores that scrutiny. A new entertainment mega-merger would seem to be politically untenable.

Netflix’s global dominance poses similar concerns. With more than 300 million subscribers, acquiring WBD would quickly push its market share above 50% — a clear antitrust red flag.

Comcast, meanwhile, already controls broadband distribution and major content assets through NBCUniversal. Regulators are likely to view a WBD acquisition as consolidating too much control, with concerns that the resulting merger would lead to limited access, higher prices, and run counter to basic antitrust principles. Even during its 2011 NBCUniversal merger, Comcast endured a lengthy review and complex consent decree.

Adding to the unlikelihood, President Trump has criticized Comcast and its leadership, calling the company “a disgrace to the integrity of broadcasting” and urging the FCC to investigate NBC for what he described as overwhelming partisan bias.

As Amazon, Netflix, Google/YouTube, and other Big Tech giants continue their entertainment expansions, the question is no longer whether the industry will consolidate, but how and under whose leadership.

Aside from regulatory implications, issues about how viewers will be affected in the ever-growing, vast media landscape should be top of mind. Especially with the media, various segments of the media consumer population.

The potential merger implications are particularly significant for the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. media market. According to Nielsen’s 2025 report, Hispanic viewers account for 56% of total streaming time, compared with 46% for the general population, and nearly one in five Hispanic viewing hours is spent on sports content.

Similarly, African Americans spend approximately 32% more time consuming media than the general population, with nearly 75% paying for more than 3 streaming services, and Asian American consumers spend 15% more time watching live sports than the general population.

A merger combining CBS’s NFL and NCAA rights with WBD’s NBA, MLB, and NHL coverage would deliver more live sports under one roof, offering better access and value for viewers of all backgrounds.

The entertainment industry is at a crossroads. Consolidation can often lead to reduced competition, and consumers have grown wary of paying more for less. In addition to the current regulatory regime, which makes political feasibility a top concern, a Paramount Skydance–WBD merger could also offer a rare combination of consumer benefits and competitive balance.

Mario H. Lopez is the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all.


Read More

Digital generated image of green semi transparent AI word on white circuit board visualizing smart technology.

What can the success of SEMATECH teach us about winning the AI race? Explore how a bold U.S. public-private partnership revived the semiconductor industry—and why a similar model could be key to advancing AI innovation today.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

A Proven Playbook for AI Leadership: Lessons from America’s Chip Comeback

Imagine waking up to this paragraph in your favorite newspaper:

The willingness of the U.S. government to eschew partisanship and undertake a bold experiment -- an experiment based on cooperation as opposed to traditional procurement, and with accountability standards rooted in trust instead of elaborate regulations -- has led the U.S. to a position of preeminence in an industry which is vital to our nation's security and economic well-being.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing on a giant robotic hand.

As AI transforms the labor market, the U.S. faces a familiar challenge: preparing workers for new skills. A look at a 1991 Labor Department report reveals striking parallels.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

We’ve Been "Preparing" for the Future Since 1991—It Hasn't Worked

“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

Keep ReadingShow less
News control room
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying

Non‑Partisan Doesn’t Mean Unbiased: Why America Keeps Getting This Wrong

For as long as I’ve worked in democracy reform, I’ve watched people use non‑partisan and non‑biased as if they meant the same thing. They don’t. This confusion has distorted how Americans judge the credibility of the democracy reform movement, journalists, and even one another. We have created an impossible expectation that anyone who claims to be non‑partisan must also be free of bias.

Non‑partisanship, at its core, is not taking sides in political debates or endorsing a party, candidate, or ideology. It creates space for fair, balanced dialogue accessible to multiple perspectives. Nonpartisan environments encourage discussion and explanation of various viewpoints.

Keep ReadingShow less