Justice Department Approves Paramount's $111 Billion Acquisition of Warner Bros. (politico.com)
- Reference: 0183773628
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/06/12/2124201/justice-department-approves-paramounts-111-billion-acquisition-of-warner-bros
- Source link: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/12/paramount-acquisition-warner-bros-approved-00960300
> The decision, expected to be announced Friday, paves the way for Paramount to combine with the entertainment and media company behind a vast film and television studio, CNN, and the HBO Max streaming service, which would be combined with Paramount+ to create a new offering boasting about 200 million subscribers. The deal, which would upend the Hollywood ecosystem by combining two historic rival studios, is opposed by many in the entertainment industry who fear it could lead to mass layoffs, among other concerns.
>
> After an extensive review, DOJ officials determined the transaction did not pose a threat to competition and declined to challenge it, said the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. The department approved the merger without requiring any divestitures, behavioral remedies or concessions, according to one of the people. [...] The DOJ's approval does not end the merger's legal scrutiny. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been reviewing the transaction and could still sue to block the deal despite federal regulators signing off. A spokesperson for Bonta's office told POLITICO earlier this week "the Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation."
>
> [...] Throughout those discussions, Paramount maintained that the merger would strengthen competition rather than diminish it, creating a media company better positioned to compete with streaming leaders and deep-pocketed technology rivals, according to people familiar with the matter. Hollywood workers fear the merger could trigger another wave of layoffs in an industry already reeling from years of consolidation. Critics argue that billions in promised cost savings will come at the expense of jobs, fewer opportunities for creators and greater concentration of power across film, television and streaming.
[1] https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/04/23/1940241/warner-bros-shareholders-approve-paramounts-81-billion-takeover
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/12/paramount-acquisition-warner-bros-approved-00960300
seems suspicious (Score:3)
at some point, people will learn that mergers = layoffs and an eventual lack of choice for customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Just the same at least one state, California is setting to maybe challenge. My reaction personally has been to steadily reduce my consumption of entertainment media over the years, the infallible way to show discontent while supporting constructive opinions that matter.
Re: seems suspicious (Score:1)
How do layoffs = less choices for customers?
Because there are fewer employed studio executives in Hollywood, how does that result in "less choice" for me, the consumer?
Bribes Work (Score:3, Insightful)
And they will continue to work.
This is stretching executive privilege .... (Score:1)
Dangerously I think. When has appeasing a President's personal wish list not been an anti trust argument?
The have the best comedy writers... (Score:2)
"Paramount maintained that the merger would strengthen competition rather than diminish it, creating a media company better positioned to compete with streaming leaders and deep-pocketed technology rivals."
They'd otherwise continue to struggle to compete. This time they only had* $111 billion dollars available to buy a massive collection of Hollywood properties, out-bidding the streaming leaders they will finally be able to compete with.
*"Had", as in "don't actually have, so need to sell lots of shares
Re: (Score:2)
They paid so much more than market price that you have to think this isn't strictly a business move. (This also happened with Twitter and Saudi Arabia.)
Re: The have the best comedy writers... (Score:1)
> They paid so much more than market price that you have to think this isn't strictly a business move.
Please, tell me about any corporate takeover where the buyer successfully offered "below market" price for a company it wanted to acquire? I can't think of one I'm aware of in the last half-century I've been consuming news...
You can't, as a practical matter offer at or below market and expect the company to agree to the sale... you essentially have to make an offer that is above-market.
Re: The have the best comedy writers... (Score:1)
> *"Had", as in "don't actually have, so need to sell lots of shares to Saudi Arabia despite the current America-First agenda that has slapped massive tariffs on almost every former ally.
This deal, as you imagine it, has foreign BUYERS investing in a US company - how is that NOT America First? It would not be America First if U.S. buyers were investing in a foreign company...
Oh, and foreigners buying U.S. goods/companies don't pay US tariffs, it's the other way around.
But aside from those couple mistakes, great post!
Of course they did (Score:3)
Of course they did. This is pure blatant corruption in play. This is an attempt to take over media control so they can feed the public only what they want them to hear.
The money must come from somewhere (Score:2)
In the end, the cost for this has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere can only be consumers.
It will simply translate into higher prices for everything, streaming media, DVDs/BlueRays, Theatres, etc etc etc
It will probably equate to a push to lengthen copyright life times to help offset the cost. The there will be tax write offs they will get, thus pushing more of the cost back onto consumers.
The world (mostly USA) has gone from competing and creating to consuming it's competition, reduci
Re: The money must come from somewhere (Score:1)
"Ambler group of people"?
Of course they did (Score:2, Troll)
Did anyone expect the government to say no as this has zero benefit to the consumers.
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
Absolutely not MAGt. Read the room bro
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
The market consolidation was likely inevitable. There is just not enough consumer interest to support as many media producers as we have now.
The problem is this particular ownership group is largely foreign (Saudi). Turning over control of a US news media channel to foreign government ownership is not good.
I know that News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) is foreign and they own Fox, and Wall Street Journal, and many others... but at least Murdoch is not a foreign government .
Re: (Score:3)
It's not inevitable though, it's the result of choices. Even the acquisition is a choice,. We could simply say "no buyout, go bankrupt" and their assets can get auctioned off piecemeal to anyone who wants to buy them.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yep let somebody else take a crack at it if they're going to fail
Everyone acts like if a company goes out of business no other company could ever try to start up a business. And strictly speaking that is true but only because we stopped and forcing antitrust law so the moment you try to start up a business you're going to get run out of business.
Re: (Score:1)
When a media company goes down, its IP should go to public domain.
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
> When a media company goes down, its IP should go to public domain.
Sure, assuming no one purchases the IP to help reimburse creditors.
Bullshit (Score:1, Troll)
There is tons and tons of addressable market share. This is about the Epstein class taking control of the media so they can control what you see and hear. They are tired of you thinking for yourself when they should be doing that for you. Peasant.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me recall how Fox News personalities would talk about Trump destroying CNN even before his first term. Or his bid to take over CBS. or his attempt to be on the board at HBO.... what did he say " they need one and they need me...."?
Re: (Score:2)
Market consolidation and monopolies are an inevitable outcome of Capitalism, that is why capitalism is regulated in America
Those who chafe at the idea of being limited in that fashion, have worked over the last 80 years to subvert this regulation (and the taxation that goes with it), and convince the American people that [1]Starve the Beast [wikipedia.org] is the only thing that will make them truly free
The [2]BIG LIE [wikipedia.org] is that the Beast (US Government) is the only thing keeping them from being proles
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Re: (Score:2)
> I know that News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) is foreign
Oh no you don't! He has been a naturalised American for over 40 years now, no backsies.
Re: (Score:3)
The check must have cleared.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, there is less than zero benefit - we'll all be harmed.
The benefit is to the new media oligarch, and to the government for which they can suppress information.
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
> In fact, there is less than zero benefit - we'll all be harmed.
How?
Seriously, how will this merger going through actually harm everyone (all)?
The only people that oppose it are all the workers afraid of being laid-off - these are profit-generating private industries, not governmental make-work projects...
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
> Did anyone expect the government to say no as this has zero benefit to the consumers.
Please, describe the actual harms Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. inflicts on consumers?
DOJ blocks mergers that cause HARM for the consumer, they aren't responsible for ensuring mergers BENEFIT the consumer.