How Antitrust Probe into Netflix and WBD Merger Killed Their Intellectual Freedom

When antitrust interfered with a merger between Netflix and WBD, it violated intellectual freedom by silencing a voice of a new company before it can take its first breath

Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) have a knack for keeping audiences on the edge of their seats, but their most gripping thriller of the year has nothing to do with Stranger Things or Game of Thrones. The story that commanded attention of customers, critics, competitors, the Department of Justice, and President Donald Trump was the attempted merger between the two.

While Netflix had the WBD board’s blessing, the merger faced an insurmountable challenge from regulators’ and Trump’s opposition. Eventually, David Ellison’s Paramount wrested WBD out of Netflix’s hands. But the saga ended with unanswered questions: was Netflix simply unable to outbid its competition, or was it pressured into submission by those holding discretionary power over business by means of antitrust laws? And if two media companies were strong-armed out of the deal, were their First Amendment rights violated?

It might seem that David Ellison’s Paramount simply offered more money than Netflix investors thought WBD was worth. But to think Neflix was simply outbid, one would have to ignore that Paramount’s deal was backed by the president of the United States in exchange for Ellison’s promise of sweeping changes to the Trump-critical editorial board at CNN (owned by WBD).

Ellison himself boasted that Paramount’s regulatory path was more certain than Netflix’s because of his friendly relationship with the administration, and because the size of the Paramount/WBD merger wouldn’t trigger an automatic presumption of illegality under the antitrust laws (as a Netflix/WBD combination likely would). Despite the DOJ’s promise that Paramount will “absolutely not” have a fast track to approval, and despite being a merger of two major legacy film-studio-and-network operators, Paramount in fact faced no hurdles in clearing the review stage in which the DOJ bogged down Netflix.

Because of differential regulatory scrutiny, Netflix didn’t just lose a business opportunity. Together with WBD they were strong-armed out of the deal. Withdrawing in the face of an uphill regulatory battle is not the same as losing a fair competitive bid.

Uniquely concerning, as many recognize, is that they were strong-armed because of Trump’s hostility to Netflix’s ideology and CNN’s critical stance toward the administration. Republicans more broadly opposed the merger because they are terrified of how a diversified Hogwarts could affect their children, fearing that Netflix–WBD would spread more “woke” ideas.

With regard to CNN, the threat to intellectual freedom is out in the open. But the attack on freedom of thought is also on display when antitrust enforcers scrutinize a private business deal because they’d prefer Netflix’s influence in the culture be pruned. Both WBD and Netflix were robbed of their intellectual freedom protected by the First Amendment. Don’t let the idea that it was a routine antitrust merger investigation obscure that.

Even if Paramount weren’t trying to snatch the deal, consider what Netflix and WBD would have had to avoid during the regulatory review process to curry political favor. A stand-up special that would pique the interest of vengeful regulators? A documentary unfavorable to the administration? A movie that triggers sensitivities of the party in power? What would get silently killed or edited while the threat of antitrust loomed over the deal?

Netflix and WBD faced an impossible choice: pursue their business strategy at the cost of fighting an unwinnable regulatory battle while walking on eggshells in their content decisions, or withdraw from the deal. So they withdrew. Paramount’s higher bid made the fight less attractive, but it doesn’t mean the antitrust threat didn’t play a role in swaying WBD away from Netflix.

With the Netflix deal killed, the projects Netflix and WBD would have produced together died too. What things will go unsaid and not be portrayed in what documentaries, movies, or shows that will not be made? The state’s intervention silenced the voice of the new company before it could take its first breath.

To regulate the size of a media company is to regulate the reach of its ideas, and thereby violate the freedom of thought, speech, and action, all of which are inseparable from each other. Blocking a merger between Netflix/WBD because it would have too much “power” is like threatening a publisher by saying, “Nice printing presses you’ve got here — it would be a shame if you lost a few.” Inhibiting the free use of property is inhibiting free thought and communication that property serves.

Regardless of whether you favor Netflix, prefer Paramount, or simply want WBD to stay a separate entity, you should be worried about any side using the force of law to push the outcome in their favor.

If we don’t defend the right of businesses to merge and speak freely, we will soon find that the only voices left are those the government has cleared for broadcast. That is a horror story we should only see on the screen, not in reality.

A version of this article was originally published by the Southern California News Group on April 15, 2026.

Image credit: NurPhoto / NurPhoto / via Getty Images