Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less