Netflix Faces DOJ Antitrust Probe Over Warner Bros Merger

The multibillion-dollar struggle between Netflix and Paramount for ownership of Warner Bros. Discovery may finally be resolved after months of teasing and scheming.

Forget the boardroom for a moment. The real fight for Warner Bros. Discovery is playing out on a different kind of backlot: the corridors of Washington D.C. and the marquee events of Hollywood glamour.

As the bidding war between Netflix and Paramount reaches its final hours, the intervention of the Department of Justice has transformed a corporate takeover into a high-stakes political drama. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s team isn’t just reviewing a merger; they are dissecting the very definition of power in the streaming age.

Netflix’s proposed $83 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) assets is the subject of an official antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as of this day.

The narrative shifted this week when the DOJ dispatched civil investigative demands across the industry, effectively turning producers and filmmakers into witnesses in a trial about market leverage. The target? To quantify the “actual leverage”, Netflix holds a move that freezes the clock on the $108 billion hostile bid just as the WBD board weighs its “best and final offer” from the Ellison-led Paramount camp.

With the Washington subplot, the timing is telling. Sources indicate the investigation quietly began around February 3, the very day Ted Sarandos sat before a hostile Senate antitrust subcommittee. In that hearing, chaired by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), the conversation veered from market competition to culture war critiques of “DEI and wokeness”. Days later, a Heritage Foundation affiliate circulated an anti-Netflix paper among MAGA supporters.

Sarandos, however, is playing the long game. He was seen at the BAFTAs in London, projecting confidence against Paramount, while simultaneously maintaining a channel to Mar-a-Lago. His November 24 meeting with President Trump just before the WBD board approved Netflix’s offer underscores a quiet diplomacy that contrasts with the DOJ’s public scrutiny.

Trump himself has been a wildcard. He has called Sarandos a “great person” and a “game changer”, while also praising his “friends” Larry and David Ellison. In a pre-Super Bowl interview, he claimed he “shouldn’t be involved” in deciding CNN’s fate, yet his administration’s antitrust arm is now deeply entangled in it.

From the Stakes, the CID recipients scattered across Los Angeles must provide sworn testimony by March 23, a deadline that looms just days after the March 20 WBD shareholder vote. The convergence of these dates is no coincidence. It suggests that while the board votes on money, the government is voting on precedent.

Netflix’s top legal officer, David Hyman, maintains the company is innocent, calling monopoly claims “unfounded”. Internally, executives are shrugging off the probe as standard procedure under the 2023 Merger Guidelines. But externally, the message is clear: in the battle for Warner Bros., the final offer isn’t just about billions; it’s about whether one streamer can own too much of our cultural imagination.

As one producer put it, “This is going nuclear.” And in this game, the fallout may determine the future of Hollywood itself.

With the present merger state and situation

• Voting by Shareholders: By March 20, 2026, WBD shareholders will cast their votes regarding the Netflix agreement.
• The competitive bids in which the inquiry is being conducted while Paramount Skydance’s seven-day opportunity for a competitive proposal ends today, February 23. It has been claimed that Paramount Skydance has indicated a willingness to pay $31 per share, surpassing Netflix’s current offer of $27.75 per share.
• Also, the recent remarks by former President Trump, who threatened to replace Netflix board member Susan Rice or suffer “consequences”, have added political turbulence to the regulatory investigation.

The investigation is primarily looking at whether the transaction would “tend to create a monopoly” or “substantially lessen competition” in accordance with Sections 2 and 7 of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, respectively.