Netflix–Warner Bros Deal Sparks Bipartisan Scrutiny Despite Company’s Push for Consumer Benefits

Netflix defends its $72 billion Warner Bros acquisition as pro-consumer and pro-innovation, but lawmakers from both parties raise major antitrust and competition concerns.

Netflix’s proposed $72 billion acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery’s studios and streaming division has ignited intense political pushback even as the company emphasizes job creation, enhanced consumer value and expanded creative opportunities, positioning the merger as aligned with current priorities focused on affordability, competition and market innovation.

The company argues the deal would allow its more than 300 million subscribers to receive greater content variety at a time when rising streaming costs and pressure on household budgets have pushed affordability to the forefront of national policy conversations.

However, bipartisan concerns emerged rapidly over the scale and market impact of the deal, with Republicans and Democrats warning that merging Netflix with HBO Max and Warner Bros’ content libraries could consolidate too much power in one platform and risk reducing choice for millions of American viewers.

Prominent critics argue the transaction could raise subscription prices, limit creative freedoms and weaken labor conditions, pointing to the already concentrated nature of the media and entertainment landscape.

Democratic lawmakers, including influential voices in competition policy, labeled the acquisition a potential threat to consumer choice and media diversity, warning that a combined Netflix–Warner Bros platform would dominate nearly half the streaming market.

Concerns center on how such scale could shape what content reaches consumers, how artists negotiate compensation and how workers in the entertainment industry navigate an increasingly consolidated marketplace.

Republicans in Congress have echoed similar fears, noting that the merger could sharply increase Netflix’s market share and reduce competitive pressure in the streaming sector.

Some members cautioned that combining two major entertainment catalogs could reduce the availability of films in theaters and reshape longstanding distribution models, affecting creativity and audience access.

The deal is expected to undergo significant examination by the U.S. Department of Justice due to both its financial size and its substantial impact on streaming competition, especially with the integration of HBO Max’s 128 million subscribers.

Regulators are likely to weigh how the combined entity’s content library, licensing strategy and market influence could shift the competitive environment in streaming and theatrical release models.

Netflix’s leadership maintains confidence in the regulatory process, framing the acquisition as supportive of consumer interests, technological advancement and creative growth.

The company has pointed to evolving viewing habits and the rise of platforms such as YouTube as evidence that competition remains dynamic and diverse across the media landscape.

Legal experts say the depth of the review will depend on how much of the content supply chain Netflix would control after the merger and whether structural remedies, such as asset divestitures, could address market concentration concerns.

Analysts suggest potential content spinoffs or licensing arrangements may emerge as conditions regulators could consider to reduce antitrust concerns.

The acquisition is also expected to face extensive review in Europe, where competition authorities have historically taken strong positions on media concentration.

European cinema associations have already expressed concerns, signaling that regulatory scrutiny will unfold across multiple jurisdictions, adding complexity to the approval process.

The review comes at a time when entertainment costs have risen for consumers, with subscription prices climbing for several major streaming services.
Recent price hikes by both Netflix and HBO Max have intensified discussions over affordability, market power and the impact of consolidation on household entertainment budgets.

The political context adds another layer of complexity, as previous high-profile media mergers have drawn public commentary and intervention attempts from national leaders.

With concerns about political favoritism and regulatory independence resurfacing, lawmakers have urged that the review process remain impartial and fully grounded in competition law.