Voices: A Netflix-Warner Bros. merger would create a streaming monopoly that Utah families can’t afford

For Utah families who gather at home for popcorn and movie nights or weekend binge-watching sessions, the stakes of a recent Senate hearing may feel far removed from the comfort of their living room. But the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights’ examination of Netflix’s proposed $83 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery carries real implications for household budgets, media choice and competition in the rapidly evolving streaming marketplace.

Executives from both companies testified under oath, and while some exchanges drifted into broader cultural debates, the central question remained clear: Would this merger reduce competition in entertainment markets and ultimately leave consumers with fewer options and higher costs?

Based on the testimony and bipartisan concerns raised by lawmakers, that question remains very much unresolved — and regulators are likely to scrutinize the deal closely.

While in public office — as Utah’s attorney general and before that as the Utah Chief Deputy Attorney General, and as a member of the Utah Legislature — I fought for policies that protect consumers and foster a competitive economy. After watching the hearing, I’m encouraged that Utah’s own Sen. Mike Lee — who chairs the subcommittee — put the right concerns on the record and demanded answers directly from the decision-makers.

Lee warned that the merger could eliminate a major competitor from the streaming marketplace while giving Netflix both the incentive and ability to disadvantage remaining rivals. As he put it during the hearing, Netflix may be seeking to become “the one platform to rule them all,” a formulation that captured lawmakers’ concern that the combined firm could wield outsized market influence.

Democrats expressed similar reservations. Sen. Cory Booker said he has “major concerns” about consolidating one of the largest content producers with one of the largest distribution platforms — a combination that could reshape how entertainment is produced, distributed and priced.

Netflix executives argued that the streaming market is broader than traditional subscription platforms and includes competition from YouTube, gaming and social media. Senators from both parties appeared skeptical of that framing. Antitrust analysis typically distinguishes between professionally produced streaming content and user-generated media, and under that more traditional definition, the combined Netflix–Warner entity could control well over 40% of the streaming market — a level that historically triggers serious antitrust scrutiny.

From a market standpoint, the implications are significant. Utah households already navigating a crowded subscription economy have seen how quickly streaming costs can add up. Services that once promised a cheaper alternative to cable have steadily raised prices, contributing to what many consumers now call “streamflation.” By definition, reduced competition relieves pressure to keep prices in check, expand content choices or innovate in ways that benefit viewers.

The merger process itself can also introduce uncertainty that affects competition well before regulators reach a final decision. Even routine strategic planning becomes more complicated when ownership questions remain unresolved. For a company like Warner Bros., a prolonged review period can create real operational hesitation. As a result, creative talent predisposed to work with Warner Bros. may choose competing platforms — including Netflix itself — rather than risk seeing projects delayed or canceled after a sale, and long-term investments in technology or content pipelines may be deferred. At the same time, the due diligence inherent in large transactions can give acquiring firms greater exposure to the acquisition partner’s operations, strategy and intellectual assets.

Regardless of this deal’s ultimate outcome, the cumulative effect could produce a weakened Warner Bros. and strengthened Netflix, a dynamic that risks undermining fair competition in the streaming market.

Antitrust laws are sometimes misinterpreted as barriers to business growth. In reality, they function more like guardrails intended to channel and preserve competitive markets, protect innovation and ensure consumers retain meaningful choices. That principle is especially important in the media and entertainment sector, where consolidation affects not only prices but also the menu of choices, investment options and new content.

The Justice Department is already reviewing the proposed acquisition, and state attorneys general are watching closely. Whether the deal ultimately proceeds or not, rigorous scrutiny will help ensure that consumer interests, meaningful competition and market integrity remain front and center.

Whether for movie night or a cornucopia of entertainment and informational alternatives, Utah families deserve a streaming marketplace defined by choice, innovation and competition-based pricing — not consolidation that limits options or weakens innovation.

The recent Senate hearing led by Chairman Lee was an important first step toward market accountability. Utahns who care about protecting a robust streaming landscape that preserves options for consumers and keeps prices in check should encourage continued vigilance from lawmakers and regulators to make sure the public interest remains protected as this process unfolds.

John Swallow served as Utah’s 20th Attorney General and before that, was Utah’s Chief Civil Deputy Attorney General for three years, overseeing seven divisions and all litigation involving the State of Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.