Recent streaming price increases, which are vastly outpacing inflation, serve as the primary evidence that the market is already too consolidated. Further mergers would grant companies like Netflix unchecked pricing power, transferring wealth from consumers and labor directly to shareholders in an oligopolistic environment.
Intense competition forces companies to innovate their products and marketing more aggressively. This rivalry validates the market's potential, accelerates its growth, and ultimately benefits the entire ecosystem and its customers, rather than being a purely zero-sum game.
An antitrust case against a Netflix-Warner Bros. merger is weak if the market is defined as all consumer 'eyeballs,' not just paid streaming. Including massive platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, where most people spend their time, creates a landscape of intense competition, undermining monopoly claims.
The Democratic party's focus on antitrust, according to Warren, is not anti-business but fundamentally pro-market. By preventing monopolies, it fosters a competitive environment where companies are forced to continually innovate to succeed, unlike giants who grow complacent and raise prices.
Contrary to the belief that number two players can be viable, most tech markets are winner-take-all. The market leader captures the vast majority of economic value, making investments in second or third-place companies extremely risky.
A company's monopoly power can be measured not just by its pricing power, but by the 'noneconomic costs' it imposes on society. Dominant platforms can ignore negative externalities, like their product's impact on teen mental health, because their market position insulates them from accountability and user churn.
The cynical take on the Netflix-WB deal is that Netflix's true goal is to eliminate movie theaters as a competitor for consumer leisure time. By pulling all WB films from theatrical release, it can strengthen its at-home streaming dominance and capture a larger share of audience attention.
The most lucrative exit for a startup is often not an IPO, but an M&A deal within an oligopolistic industry. When 3-4 major players exist, they can be forced into an irrational bidding war driven by the fear of a competitor acquiring the asset, leading to outcomes that are even better than going public.
The acquisition isn't a traditional consumer monopoly but a monopsony, concentrating buying power. This gives a combined 'Super Netflix' leverage to dictate terms and potentially lower wages for actors, writers, and directors, shifting power from talent to the studio.
By launching a bid for Warner Bros., Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos has ingeniously stalled the market. This move forces all other potential suitors and targets into a holding pattern, as any significant M&A activity must now wait for the outcome of this lengthy regulatory battle, giving Netflix a strategic advantage.
The FTC's failure to prove Meta held a monopoly set a powerful legal precedent, signaling that regulators face a high burden of proof. This has effectively given a green light to large-scale acquisitions, kicking off a "golden age of M&A" as companies feel emboldened to pursue mega-deals without fear of being blocked.