Netflix To Buy Warner Bros. In $72 Billion Cash, Stock Deal (bloomberg.com)
- Reference: 0180298829
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/25/12/05/1728256/netflix-to-buy-warner-bros-in-72-billion-cash-stock-deal
- Source link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-05/netflix-to-buy-warner-bros-in-72-billion-cash-stock-deal
> Prior to the closing of the sale, Warner Bros. will complete the planned spinoff of its networks division, which includes cable channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT. That transaction is now expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2026, Netflix said in [2]a statement . With the purchase, Netflix becomes owner of the HBO network, along with its library of hit shows like The Sopranos and The White Lotus. Warner Bros. assets also include its sprawling studios in Burbank, California, along with a vast film and TV archive that includes Harry Potter and Friends.
>
> Netflix said it expects to maintain Warner Bros.' current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films, a point that had been a cause of concern in Hollywood. Netflix said the deal will allow it to "significantly expand" US production capacity and invest in original content, which will create jobs and strengthen the entertainment industry. Still, the combination is also expected to create "at least $2 billion to $3 billion" in cost savings per year by the third year, according to the statement.
U.S. Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah who leads the Senate antitrust committee, said the acquisition "should send alarm to antitrust enforcers around the world."
"Netflix built a great service, but increasing Netflix's dominance this way would mean the end of the Golden Age of streaming for content creators and consumers," Lee wrote in [3]a post on X.
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren [4]called it an antitrust "nightmare " that would harm workers and consumers. "A Netflix-Warner Bros would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market -- threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk," Warren said on Friday. "It would mean more price hikes, ads, & cookie cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers," she said in [5]a post on X. "The media industry is already controlled by a few corporations with too much power to censor free speech. The gov't must step in."
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-05/netflix-to-buy-warner-bros-in-72-billion-cash-stock-deal
[2] https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-to-acquire-warner-bros
[3] https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1996431519590547705
[4] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/netflix-warner-bros-deal-faces-antitrust-pushback-even-company-touts-benefits-2025-12-05/
[5] https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1996966530177733114
Saved from the Ellisons, at least (Score:4, Insightful)
Netflix is, eh, what it is. But at least it isn't owned by the fine minds that brought you Oracle licensing behavior and is fully on-board with the Project Fascist America.
Re:Saved from the Ellisons, at least (Score:4, Insightful)
So you forgot when Netflix was funding the Biden fascism machine?
Honestly, yeah, I do. When was this, and what was the pro-fascist action?
We need a right-winger billionaire to balance Soros
You've got plenty. Publicly known support from home-grown billionaires (this omits foreign actors like MBS giving billions to his family, donations to 501c3s, "partnerships", his shitcoin bribe pipeline, and any quiet bribes be haven't heard about yet):
- Richard Kurtz
- Steve Wynn
- Bernard Marcus
- Elon Musk
- Cameron Winklevoss
- Tyler Winklevoss
- Miriam Adelson
- Jimmy John Liautaud
- Geoffrey Palmer
- Don Ahern
- Roger Penske
- Robert Johnson
- Timothy Dunn
- Elizabeth Uihlein
- Richard Uihlein
- Phil Ruffin
- Linda McMahon
- Diane Hendricks
- George Bishop
- J. Joe Ricketts
- Douglas Leone
- Andrew Beal
- Larry Ellison
- Kenny Troutt
- Kelcy Warren
- Jeff Sprecher
- Kelly Loeffler
- Antonio Gracias
bit of irony (Score:5, Insightful)
> "Netflix built a great service, but increasing Netflix's dominance this way would mean the end of the Golden Age of streaming for content creators and consumers," Lee wrote in a post on X.
The golden age was arguably when Netflix had the streaming monopoly and everyone licensed their stuff to them, which ended long, long ago.
Re: bit of irony (Score:2)
Exactly. Streaming is close to a natural monopoly.
Re:bit of irony (Score:4, Insightful)
> The golden age was arguably when Netflix had the streaming monopoly and everyone licensed their stuff to them, which ended long, long ago.
Only because cable was still competition.
These days, if you believe Netflix wouldn't be just another cable company when they're the only streaming game in town, I've got a bridge to sell you.
They're still the market movers - ever notice Netflix jacks up their price, then all the other streaming services follow? Or how Netflix stops password sharing, then the others follow?
Re: (Score:2)
If that age had persisted, it would not have remained gold for very long. Monopolies invariably jack up prices for the consumer (since they have no where to turn) and ratchet down payments to their providers (since they have no other platform to use). They burn the candle at both ends, as brightly as they can, for as long as they can, until something collapses. That is exactly the direction Netflix was moving in and exactly what motivated many content holders to go build their own platform.
So that is our
Reduces fragmentation. (Score:2)
This will hopefully mean that the Warner streaming services are shut down and rolled into Netflix. The potential downsides are that Netflix may decline to license content to other streaming services, and other content providers may be reluctant to license their content to Netflix, seeing them as more of a direct competitor.
Re:Reduces fragmentation. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said a for awhile now that in the age of streaming services content owners should *have to license* their content out to other services at a reasonable cost.
Or really just go back to the [1]Paramount Decree [wikipedia.org] style of things and say that you can be a delivery service or a production service but not both.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.
Re:Reduces fragmentation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that HBO Max + Netflix will cost the same as Netflix does now?
I swear people who insist there's something terrible about multiple streaming services can't see the wood for the trees. HBO Max and Disney+ and Hulu and Netflix and Paramount+ and Peacock and Prime all merging into one service doesn't mean a single service for $10 a month, it means a single service for $150 a month.
I would rather just continue the status quo. Have them compete with one another, and let me switch subscriptions every few months to get the content I didn't get with the others.
Re: Reduces fragmentation. (Score:2)
It saves Netflix the trouble of developing a bunch of new content. They're gaining access to a giant back catalog of top notch programming, one of the major studios (DC) regularly making blockbusters, and even perhaps some customers. Overall, is expect a bunch of synergy out of this deal. The price will be way lower than Netflix+Max.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, look at how Disney's and Hulu's prices came down after that merger!
Oh, wait...
Re: Reduces fragmentation. (Score:2)
That analogy doesn't really hold much water. Those services were essentially serving two different market segments. Bundling ESPN with Disney is a very different thing from - say - bundling Disney with Looney Toons.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yeah, look at how Disney's and Hulu's prices came down after that merger
You can add an ad-free Hulu subscription for $1 per month once you subscribe to Disney+ (ad-free). I'm not sure Disney really needed the content as much as they wanted the subscriber base that they could glam on to their existing packages. I'm not sure it has been profitable, and will take a long time to pay off that $9 billion investment.
Re:Reduces fragmentation. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't expect Netflix pricing to stay the same.
But the main reason this is happening is there are too many streaming services for them all to be viable. This isn't a merger of equals. HBO Max isn't sustainable right now. Not enough people are willing to pay their asking price to keep it going.
You merge the services, cut your operating costs, and raise Netflix prices a little.
And maybe we see Netflix take advantage of Warner's distribution systems and get more Netflix content in theaters and on DVD/Bluray.
We don't have to allow this, it's a false choice. (Score:1)
For the record there is no law or "right" to mergers and acquisitions, we've just been acclimated to this type of thing being so regular that we accept it as just the way things have to be. Corporations as a legal structure only exist at the behest of the laws we allow them to exist under.
We the people (as in the government) can simply say "No, WB, you don't get to sell or merge" or we can just say neither of these companies get to buy it since they already hold such a large share of the industry already.
Re:We don't have to allow this, it's a false choic (Score:5, Interesting)
Has there ever been a merger flat out denied in the past 50 years? At most we get a few back and forths with some lip service about being better for the consumer.
Has a merger ever decreased prices?
Re: (Score:3)
> Has there ever been a merger flat out denied in the past 50 years?
Less than 50 years ago, AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile and was told by the regulators to pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
> Has a merger ever decreased prices?
Plenty have. But none large enough to be newsworthy. That's a bitter irony, once you hit enough zeros greed dominates the equation and merges cease being about efficiency and start being about limiting competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you live in a society with property rights, you do in fact have the right to both buy and sell that property. Like all rights, it's not absolute and can be limited in special circumstances. Corporations are just legal mechanisms for multiple people to share certain of their individual rights, most prominently property rights.
Warner Brothers is heavily in debt and has been posting big losses since the beginning of 2022. Their financials certainly look like they're in dire straits.
The deal hasn't clo
Escaping dire straits by selling Dire Straits (Score:2)
> Their financials certainly look like they're in dire straits.
It seems Warner can't catch a break. Time Warner's financials were in dire straits in 2004 as well with a load of debt from the AOL merger. That time, they paid their debt by selling Dire Straits and the rest of Warner Music Group to Edgar Bronfman Jr.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but these aren't private proprietorships or just a sale of assets. The Clayton Act exists, has precedent and is pretty broad, there is a line and this merger is well over it. The government is fully in it's rights to at the least deny sale to either of these parties (and IMO should)
For all their "losses" they were also able to pay down their debt in 2024 with $4.4B in cash flow (which got Zaslav a big fat bonus). Like all Hollywood accounting the numbers can be suspect.
> The deal hasn't closed yet. US regulators will be looking at it pretty carefully.
Of for sure this merger in thi
Re:We allow false choice. (Score:1)
"We the People" are an armed mobocracy , tending toward violent tyranny. Such socialists are rotted with envy of their betters. Think ant-hill and Maoism. Corporations are sets of freely organized subscribers. Such productive liberals thrive in a (re)publican marketplace / bazaar. Think guilds and David Packard.
Re: (Score:3)
> Corporations are sets of freely organized subscribers.
Cool, then no more LLC, no more C-Corp, S-Corp, all that goes out the window. You have private contracts only and no special legal protections or benefits.
> rotted with envy of their betters
This is not a "socialist" thing this is a human thing and why income inequality in societies is so correlated with other societal problems. But some folks want to make it like saying that violates some inherent law of nature. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's not good!
I predict (Score:3)
I predict the yacht club that sails the high seas to drastically increase in membership soon.
Re: (Score:3)
The merger is a bad idea, but the comment "threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, " is a bit too far.
You don't have to pay for the service after all.
Sailing the high seas may be more popular, but given how little is worth watching it's a minor issue.
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't have to pay for the service after all.
Some people insist that they do need to see the content. They were often brought up in an environment where they were told they can have it all. And every politician will always promise everything for free (or at least cheap), as that is the way to get (re)elected.
It's going to be AOL Time Warner all over again (Score:2)
It's going to be like the ill-fated AOL Time Warner acquisition all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is "Will they re-release the roadrunner cartoons?".
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say exactly this. Funny how Warner Brother's keeps getting acquired by tech companies that imagine themselves to be movie studios. Tech companies keep forgetting that they are good at...tech. Being a successful movie studio is a very, very different thing. Companies do best when they stay in their lane.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Netflix is known for shows and movies they have made, so buying WB isn't going into an area they have not been involved in. AT&T also made mistakes, because being involved in communications is very different than creating things that in turn get distributed.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's going to be like the ill-fated AOL Time Warner acquisition all over again.
What do you mean? That acquisition was great -- for AOL stockholders and insiders.
everyone had some overlap with WB (Score:2)
but the least overlap was with netflix.
Netflix and warner only overlap in streaming
Paramount, Comcast and warner also overlap in streaming.
Meanwhile paramount and Comcast also have a major Movie Studio business, a TV production businness, tentpole franchises, and TV/Cable Channels.
Way too much overlap both in the USoA and Outside the USoA. even if you say that in the USoA the cards were stacked in favour of Paramount, outside the USoA, Netflix was the one with the least regulatory backlash...
Do not be so pesimistic (Score:2)
Maybe the kids at warner can teach netflix a thing ot two:
- How to make each seasson of a show come exactly one year after the last seasson.
- Release a movie in an adequate theather exclusive Window, perhaps smaller than the current WB one, but muach, much longer than netflix's one
- Dump 2 or 3 episodes of a TV series at once for the premiere, and then drop the rest week by week to build momentum and word of mouth, so that good series have more chance to survive
- to license their old content to cable/tv cha
antitrust (Score:1)
Anyone?
Paramount bid $30/share (Score:4, Informative)
Paramount's final bid, received Thursday evening, was for $30 per share, all cash, people close to the matter told CNBC, speaking on the condition of anonymity about confidential dealings. Paramount's offer included a $5 billion breakup fee if the transaction didn't win regulatory approval after roughly 10 months, the people said.
[1]https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/0... [cnbc.com]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/05/neflix-warner-bros-discovery-deal.html
Huh (Score:2)
Always thought it would be Disney buying up WB and eventually, Sony.
Even less competition now (Score:2)
I mean it's for streaming and you can live without that but you can expect prices to go up now. They will pay for this buyout by jacking up prices.
Sure you can sail the seven seas for Netflix but you can't do that for food. I mean you can but eventually you will probably get caught and thrown in prison...
Fun fact Joe Biden was in the process of breaking up several of the trusts that were artificially raising food prices. Like the egg producers that were colluding and the beef slaughterhouses of which
There are 5 former Warner employees... (Score:5, Informative)
There are 5 former Warner employees on the leadership team at Netflix. Seems like a conflict of interest. They must be sitting on a bunch of Warner stock and still have relationships with execs at Warner. I wonder if any of them advocated for this sale internally because they would seem to be a massive conflict of interest.
This transactions is very sketchy and will be investigated for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
> I wonder if any of them advocated for this sale internally because they would seem to be a massive conflict of interest
...or if they knew about the acquisition pitch before it was public knowledge and used that insider knowledge to buy even more Warner stock...(or if they get insider information that the sale isn't going through, and then sell their Warner stock before that news drops...)
Re: (Score:3)
"Employee bought company ABC's stock after hearing that his employer is planning to acquire ABC" is already against insider-trading laws, which I imagine is part of the training for Warner (I had to retrain every few years when I worked at a public company). Whether ABC was a former employer is not really relevant. The enforcement of the laws is an open issue in the current administration.
Re:There are 5 former Warner employees... (Score:4, Insightful)
> This transactions is very sketchy and will be investigated for decades.
And the outcome will be precisely fuck all. Antitrust laws in America governing American corporations have no teeth what so ever. The DoJ barely investigates them and when they do they loose on technicalities.
The investigations are just a cost of doing business at this point.