House Judiciary subcommittee grills witnesses on Netflix, Paramount bids for Warner Bros., warning of consumer and press risks

The House Committee on the Judiciary’s subcommittee on [streaming and competition] heard expert testimony on whether proposed deals by Netflix and Paramount Skydance to acquire Warner Bros. pose antitrust and public-interest risks.

Chairman Fitzgerald opened the hearing by tracing the industry’s shift from theatrical releases to digital streaming and said the panel would examine whether further consolidation “would be helpful or harmful to consumers.” Ranking Member Nadler and Rep. Raskin framed the stakes: Nadler warned that consolidation has concentrated power and raised questions about pricing, jobs and diversity of viewpoints, and Raskin said reports of political influence over merger reviews were especially troubling.

Four witnesses — Jay Ezrilev of Elevecon, Jessica Miluzian of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dr. John Yoon of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, and Matt Wood of Free Press Action — gave five-minute summaries and then answered members’ questions.

The witnesses largely agreed on the central analytical question: how regulators will define the relevant market. Dr. Yoon told the committee that courts and agencies will focus on whether the market is narrowly defined as subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) or more broadly as the digital attention market that could include YouTube, social platforms and linear TV. He noted that a narrow SVOD definition could push combined market shares above the 30% threshold that the Supreme Court’s Philadelphia National Bank decision established as a structural presumption of illegality, while a broader definition could dilute that measure.

“Determining the proper relevant market will be the first step,” Dr. Yoon said. “If opponents of a merger succeed in defining the market as confined exclusively to subscription video on demand, market shares will be difficult to establish.”

Witnesses disputed whether recent price increases show clear market power. Jay Ezrilev urged enforcement focused on preventing harm to competition under established consumer-welfare principles and cautioned against expanding antitrust enforcement to pursue broader policy goals. “The enforcers should also not use their leverage to extract a settlement that advances a policy agenda,” Ezrilev said.

Jessica Miluzian emphasized regulatory humility and the need to evaluate market dynamism and substitution effects between platforms. “This process should follow well established methodologies using economic evidence to determine the relevant market and possible anticompetitive effects while equally assessing the potential pro-consumer consequences,” she said.

Matt Wood warned about harms beyond textbook price effects, including job losses, reduced creative opportunities and threats to a diverse news ecosystem. “Runaway consolidation eliminates choice,” Wood said, and he argued that recent merger approvals under the current administration have sometimes intersected with political pressure on newsrooms.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several recurring themes: whether promised merger conditions (for example, commitments to license content to rivals) are enforceable; how consolidations historically affected employment; and the potential for vertical foreclosure if a buyer controls studio assets and distribution channels.

Several members also raised allegations of political influence in merger reviews. Rep. Raskin recounted testimony from a former DOJ official and said, based on press reports, that the White House’s involvement in merger outcomes risks turning antitrust review into political bargaining. Witnesses agreed that if political influence were shown to be affecting enforcement, that would be a serious problem for antitrust agencies.

Lawmakers entered numerous statements and organizational letters into the hearing record, including submissions from labor groups and industry organizations. The hearing concluded without any formal vote; the chair allowed members five legislative days to submit follow-up questions and materials for the record.

What happens next: If either the Netflix or Paramount bids proceed, the Department of Justice (or the Federal Trade Commission, depending on the filing) will need to define the relevant market, assess market shares, and decide whether any efficiencies or remedies offered by the merging parties offset potential harms. Members of the subcommittee emphasized that those determinations should be driven by data and that congressional oversight of antitrust agencies is warranted, especially where political interference is alleged.