← Back to context

Comment by GaryBluto

7 hours ago

I wonder if an antitrust suit will be filed, this seems like a pretty significant acquisition.

With the current administration, anything can be legal.

Besides, they still have plans to spin off the cable networks, so this would mostly concern the streaming assets, movie studio, and the IP.

  • The merger needs to be accepted by other markets, too. No offense but I find it quite amusing how Americans keep forgetting about that.

    • How does this work? I assume there would be one parent company at the end and if that's an American company what does any other country can say about it? Sure if they incorporated a child company there they might interfere, but they could also just close the company to deal with the situation and go forward with the merger.

      3 replies →

Considering the words they're using across the announcement, it seems they're well aware what this will trigger, everything seems carefully chosen so someone can later point at this announcement and say "See, we think this will add MORE user choice, not less, which is good for competition!".

  • It will lead to more choice ... in videos to watch. It will reduce choice in where to watch them or who to pay for the pleasure.

    • Great re-iteration of my point :) Written for anti-trust regulators, intentionally misusing the words they'd use, but with very different meaning. Hopefully professionals will see through their thin veil.

  • Every major merger announcement includes this obvious lie.

    • It is not a lie though. WB content is not globally available, Netflix content is. I for one, welcome access to stuff that WB has been sitting on without letting me pay them for it.

      3 replies →