Justice Department Approves Paramount's $111 Billion Acquisition of Warner Bros. (politico.com) 54
The Justice Department has approved Paramount Skydance's $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery without requiring divestitures or other concessions. The deal still faces scrutiny from state attorneys general. Politico reports: 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.
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.
Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anyone expect the government to say no as this has zero benefit to the consumers.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
anti-semitic nazi trope
Re: Of course they did (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not Zionists, but rather Nazis.
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:Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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:2)
> let somebody else take a crack at it if they're going to fail
Yeah, but not an existing media conglomerate (or at least, not one over a certain size.)
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.
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:Of course they did (Score:5, Interesting)
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 Starve the Beast [wikipedia.org] is the only thing that will make them truly free
The BIG LIE [wikipedia.org] is that the Beast (US Government) is the only thing keeping them from being proles
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Murdoch is a US citizen (Score:4, Informative)
Murdoch became a US citizen four decades ago (in 1985) so he could expand his media presence in the US. He's been one of you since long before this site existed. The most recent iteration of the media conglomerate News Corporation (since 2004) was incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in New York, with the US media assets becoming 21st Century Fox in 2013 (the Australian media assets were spun off as News Corp, but they don't have significant US presence). You can't complain about Fox being "foreign" at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert is American.
He renounced his Australian citizenship decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
> The market consolidation was likely inevitable. There is just not enough consumer interest to support as many media producers as we have now.
Uhm, yes there is.
There may not be enough consumer interest to support media producers being as huge and expensive as they are now, but the solution to that isn't to allow mergers, it's to ban them. Let crappy companies fail and allow companies that aren't media companies to buy the assets.
We almost certainly, thanks to streaming, are actively consuming content mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
>>The check must have cleared.
Crypto payments are one way and can't be undone, no need to wait for anything to "clear"
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.
Re: Of course they did (Score:3)
In what way is having less choice of news outlets (once CNN and CBS are under the same owner) not harmful to consumers?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that some of the franchises we love are going to be wrecked by this. Star Trek, for example. Whatever you think of the current crop of shows, this merger isn't likely to deliver good outcomes.
seems suspicious (Score:3)
at some point, people will learn that mergers = layoffs and an eventual lack of choice for customers.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, they are clearly listing two distinct outcomes.
Mergers lead to:
1) Layoffs -- due to workload being focused on one labor pool and removing redundant positions.
2) Less choice for consumers -- because you now have fewer independent companies for a product or service.
They aren't saying the layoffs are the cause of the lower choice for consumers. But arguably that's true, too. Off all the people laid off some will not find work at another company in the same function. Some may end up leaving the industry co
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't, GP never made that claim, you're just illiterate.
See the word "and"? It means there are TWO things going on. So if I say "I had ice cream in the morning and had a hamburger in the afternoon", it doesn't mean "I had an icecream sandwich".
You can find out more useful facts by going to your supervisor and saying "How am supposed to annoy Americans for Glorious Russia if not given ESL class" and they'll sign you up for the official IRA ESL class for you. You're welcome!
Bribes Work (Score:2, 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:3)
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 to Saudi Arabia despite the current America-First agenda that has slapped massive tariffs on almost every former ally.
Hahahahahaa. That's so funny.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
This is the second time in this thread I've slapped someone down for a post that clearly shows English illiteracy.
> 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...
Foreign control of previous American assets isn't obvious to you?
> Oh, and foreigners buying U.S. goods/companies don't pay US tariffs, it's the other way around.
GP never claimed otherwise. Tariffs a
Re: (Score:3)
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...
A foreign company buying output from an American company is profitable to America. Selling the company itself isn't.
Let's simplify and imagine a Hollywood studio that produces say... sitcoms. Money comes in from viewership... either from advertising income or streaming subscriptions. Money goes out to the employees that create the sitcoms and the profit pile.
If the company is American-owned, the profit says in America and is spent on (mostly) American stuff. Sure, the C-suite folk may buy some yacht
Of course they did (Score:5, Informative)
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:3)
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, reducing choice for the consumer and concentration wealth into a small and ambler group of people.
Re: The money must come from somewhere (Score:2)
"Ambler group of people"?
All that matters is (Score:3)
Funny (Score:2)
Divestiture (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Justice Department has approved Paramount Skydance's $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery without requiring divestitures or other concessions."
Absolutely not true. CBS was required to divest itself of Stephen Colbert. Canceling the #1 late night talk show that was earning many millions of dollars after considering streaming revenue was a purely political decision that was entirely mandated (wink-wink not mandated) by the Trump administration.