The U.S. Department of Justice has broadened its review of Netflix’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, asking pointed questions about whether the streaming giant has used exclusionary tactics that could entrench market power.
In a civil subpoena first reported by other outlets, DOJ investigators asked another entertainment company to detail any “exclusionary conduct on the part of Netflix that would reasonably appear capable of entrenching market or monopoly power.” The order also requested information about how past media mergers affected competition for creative talent and how talent contracts vary across studios — signalling that regulators are not just focused on subscriber counts, but on the supply chains that feed the content ecosystem.
Why regulators care
Consolidation in media is more than a headline number. Owning both deep content libraries and distribution can reshape bargaining leverage over creators, platforms and advertisers. Netflix’s bid — reportedly worth about $82.7–83 billion — would combine the streaming service with Warner’s film and TV studios and franchises such as Game of Thrones, Harry Potter and DC characters. That mix of library depth and franchise IP is what antitrust enforcers say can shift competitive dynamics, especially in deals where talent, licensing and exclusivity matter.
The DOJ’s line of questioning, which included requests about how previous studio mergers affected competition for creative talent, suggests investigators are digging into whether the combined company could lock up stars, writers or directors in ways that make it hard for rivals to compete.
Netflix says it’s a standard review
Netflix has pushed back on suggestions of a separate monopolization probe. A company spokesperson said the firm was not aware of any investigation beyond a standard merger review and that it was “constructively engaging” with regulators. Outside counsel Steven Sunshine likewise described the process as a routine merger review, saying the company had not been given notice of a separate monopolization inquiry.
Still, the DOJ’s subpoena — and the broad lines of questioning it contains — means the review is probing more than pure market shares.
Political theater and lobbying moves
The proposed transaction has already spilled into public hearings. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos faced tough questions from senators in early February about how the deal would affect competition and content diversity. Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee was particularly blunt, suggesting Netflix “seeks to become the one platform to rule them all” — language that captures the concern that a combined Netflix–Warner could wield outsized influence over what millions watch.
Netflix has also been beefing up its regulatory bench in Washington. The company has retained Seth Bloom’s Bloom Strategic Counsel to help navigate antitrust and regulatory matters. It has previously tapped other firms for representation in related DC work; the streaming giant’s outreach to lobby shops like Avoq — which has been reported as taking on Netflix work — shows the company is preparing for a multi-front review of both legal and public opinion dynamics. You can read more about Netflix’s engagement with PR and lobbying shops like Avoq in our coverage of industry representation Avoq Adds Netflix Work.
Rival bids and global scrutiny
Netflix is not the only suitor. Paramount Skydance mounted a competing bid that Warner’s board labeled inadequate. Regulators in other markets are watching too: British lawmakers and former policymakers have urged the UK competition authority to take a hard look, and the European Commission is expected to scrutinize the rival bids in parallel. The cross-border interest highlights how media mergers can have ripple effects on global licensing and distribution arrangements — remember the uproar when major tech platforms reshaped how movies and TV reach consumers, and how those moves affected services like Movies Anywhere and industry partnerships.
What to expect next
For now, DOJ officials appear to be in an early fact-gathering phase. The civil subpoena language indicates the agency is trying to build a picture of whether Netflix’s behavior — beyond the mechanics of a single transaction — might lock competitors out of crucial inputs such as talent or distribution windows.
If investigators find evidence of exclusionary conduct or potentially anticompetitive contract terms, they could seek remedies: divestitures, behavioral commitments, or in extreme cases, litigation to block the deal. Alternatively, the agency might clear the transaction subject to negotiated conditions.
Either way, regulators’ focus on talent contracts and distribution practices signals a broader shift: antitrust enforcers are treating content and the people who create it as critical competitive inputs, not just as products to be moved around on balance sheets. For Netflix and its rivals, that means any deal will be evaluated not only in dollars and subscribers but in who controls what gets made and who can make it.
As the process unfolds, expect more subpoenas, sharper questions in public hearings, and an intensified lobby effort — both in Washington and in capitals across Europe and the U.K. What looks like a blockbuster acquisition on paper may end up being a long, complicated legal and political test of how much consolidation the global media market will tolerate.