Block the Warner Bros. sale, dismantle the dominance of Big Streaming, and push for lower prices
By Alex Jacquez
Whether Netflix or Paramount seizes Warner Bros. Discovery would spell a disappointing outcome for streaming customers.
Consumers deserve fair pricing, greater choice, and the freedom to watch their favorites without juggling multiple apps.
On December 5, Netflix stunned the media landscape by announcing an $83 billion bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). If this deal goes through, iconic Warner Bros. brands and franchises—HBO, Game of Thrones, Batman, and Harry Potter, among others—could fall under the umbrella of the world's largest streaming platform.
Shortly after, Paramount Skydance (PSKY) launched a heightened takeover bid worth $108 billion, directly appealing to WBD shareholders.
This battle over Warner Bros. Discovery marks another round in the ongoing arms race for streaming dominance and subscriber growth. Disney’s 2019 acquisition of 21st Century Fox already reshaped the landscape, and today the streaming market resembles a fragmented maze of platforms and rising costs. The average consumer now subscribes to about 4.6 streaming services, and monthly costs have climbed to roughly $69—a 13% increase from last year—on top of internet charges.
As these platforms expand, there’s a real risk they’ll replicate the old Hollywood playbook—prioritizing control over both production and distribution to squeeze more profits from viewers. Policymakers should heed those lessons and act to preserve consumer choice by blocking major consolidations and rethinking how the industry is structured.
We don’t have to look far to see how large media entities can leverage control over content and distribution. For instance, Disney recently caused extended blackouts for YouTube TV viewers due to a fee dispute, urging customers to switch to ESPN+. The tactic underscores the leverage these giants hold—and why consumers feel trapped inside their ecosystems.
Meanwhile, introductory pricing often lures subscribers in, only to be lifted once they’re inside the ecosystem. Price increases have been steady across the board: Netflix’s ad-free option has grown from $7.99 to $17.99 per month over a span of 13 years, and Disney+’s ad-free plan has risen to $18.99 monthly, up 172% from its 2019 launch price.
This pattern rekindles the appeal of traditional cable bundles, even as cord-cutters hoped for real freedom. The promise of cutting the cord was about escaping rigid, monopolistic practices and hidden fees tied to hundreds of channels. Yet today’s streaming habits can feel just as restrictive, with a tangle of services and higher bills than many households anticipated.
The streaming era isn’t unique in American entertainment history. Concentrating control over what we watch has long been a concern—from the era of talkies through today. The industry has faced similar challenges before, and policymakers successfully addressed them in Hollywood and broadcast television. Those same solutions could help tame today’s streaming giants.
In the 1930s, major studios controlled production, distribution, and theater exhibition, prioritizing their own content and limiting competition. The government responded with the Paramount Decrees, forcing a structural separation that enabled independent production to flourish.
Later, as television exploded, ABC, CBS, and NBC owned production and primetime slots, which led to the 1970s fin-syn rules. Those rules disincentivized broadcasters from owning and syndicating their own shows, helping independent producers and later cable networks thrive. The eventual repeal of those rules didn’t erase the risks of consolidation; it simply shifted how power is exercised.
The current platform conglomerates—Netflix, Disney, Paramount, and Amazon—face a parallel set of dynamics. The same logic suggests they can and should be challenged to prevent full vertical integration.
A path forward could involve compelling Big Streaming to divest either production or distribution assets, ensuring competition remains robust. If platforms operate independently, they should face licensing requirements similar to those governing cable operators—enabling content to be licensed from multiple providers for fair fees. Such changes would reduce the push to lock viewers into exclusive apps and would encourage a healthier ecosystem where independent studios can compete on merit.
Under this vision, price and user experience—not exclusive libraries—become the main sources of competition. Independent producers would regain leverage, and viewers would enjoy more affordable options and a broader range of choices, without juggling a dozen different apps.
Ultimately, the fate of this merger rests with the courts. The Department of Justice should challenge the deal, with state attorneys general joining the case, and Congress should consider reestablishing stronger production-exhibition boundaries for film and television.
Opponents will frame these moves as government overreach, pointing to investments in content and jobs. Yet history shows that prudent regulation can elevate quality: the Paramount Decrees, for example, unlocked a surge of independent filmmaking.
Blocking Warner Bros. Discovery’s potential sale to Netflix or Paramount and reintroducing competitive forces across the industry could lower prices, expand choices for viewers, and help preserve theaters—an outcome few would oppose.
Alex Jacquez serves as chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a nonprofit focused on economic policy. He previously advised the White House National Economic Council on economic development and industrial strategy.
Further reading: Is Netflix’s $83 billion Warner Bros. Discovery bid a sign of weakness or strategic boldness?
Also see: Paramount’s aggressive $108 billion bid for Warner Bros. is tied to high-profile political connections
—Alex Jacquez
This analysis was produced by MarketWatch, part of Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch operates independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. The views expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of MarketWatch or its parent organizations. Please consult independent sources and financial advisors before making decisions based on this content.
