Netflix's (NFLX.US) proposed $72 billion equity deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD.US) studio and streaming assets has sparked a Wall Street debate over whether regulators will permit the world's largest streaming giant to expand further. Following a fierce bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix now confronts antitrust scrutiny, requiring the company to prove to global regulators that the deal will not grant it unfair dominance in the streaming market.
The transaction would integrate Warner Bros.' film and TV studios, HBO, and HBO Max into Netflix's global ecosystem, instantly reshaping the competitive landscape. This merger would combine the top-ranked streaming platform with the fourth-largest HBO Max service—along with its hit franchises like "Game of Thrones," "Friends," and DC Comics adaptations—fundamentally altering the online video content market.
Even seasoned Wall Street analysts were caught off guard. Citi analyst Jason Bazinet admitted the scenario was barely on his radar, stating, "This was the lowest-probability outcome in our framework. We initially assigned just a 5% chance of this deal materializing, given the low likelihood of further consolidation by the industry leader."
Bazinet had anticipated mergers among mid-tier streaming apps like HBO Max, Paramount+ (under Paramount Global (PSKY.US)), and Peacock (under Comcast (CMCSA.US)), rather than a market leader absorbing a major rival. According to JustWatch, a platform tracking U.S. streaming engagement, Netflix and Warner Bros. combined would control roughly one-third of the domestic streaming market—a level of concentration that has drawn sharp criticism.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren lambasted the deal as "an antitrust nightmare," warning it could "force Americans to pay higher subscription fees, limit content choices, and endanger U.S. workers." She urged the Justice Department to conduct an impartial review free from "backroom deals."
Netflix’s expanded content library may raise red flags among global regulators concerned about excessive market control. Analysts predict prolonged DOJ scrutiny, with potential lawsuits if Netflix fails to offer remedies for approval. The company is expected to argue that regulators should not narrowly define the market as subscription streaming, given broader entertainment consumption via YouTube (GOOGL.US), ad-supported platforms, gaming, and social video. Netflix may position the acquisition as necessary to compete in a fragmented entertainment landscape rather than a power grab.
Bazinet noted another regulatory tactic: Netflix plans to operate Warner Bros. and HBO Max as separate direct-to-consumer (DTC) apps, potentially framing the deal as preserving consumer choice—even offering discounted bundles.
Wall Street remains cautiously optimistic, largely due to Netflix’s strategic rationale. As Bazinet explained, Netflix has long sought globally resonant content, and Warner Bros. boasts "phenomenal IP"—from "Harry Potter" and "Game of Thrones" to "The Sopranos" and "The Big Bang Theory"—that transcends borders.
William Blair analysts hailed the merger as creating a "streaming titan," solidifying Netflix’s top position, while Needham’s Laura Martin emphasized Warner Bros.' irreplaceable scale. However, investors must weigh strategic gains against near-term risks. Netflix projects $2–3 billion in annual cost synergies by Year 3, with GAAP EPS accretion expected in Year 2.
Oppenheimer’s Jason Helfstein struck a more cautious tone, flagging execution risks, political headwinds, and regulatory delays as material hurdles. "We see very real antitrust risks here," he wrote. Bazinet also warned the deal exacerbates streaming stratification, potentially drawing more regulatory attention to Netflix’s dominance.
Yet Martin argues investors may be too near-sighted on valuation: "At a 1–3 year horizon, Netflix may be overpaying, but this asset will redefine its trajectory over the next two decades."
Comments