Congress’s January 7 streaming hearing, in which members heavily criticized Netflix’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros., treated media consolidation as what it is: a power struggle over who controls production and distribution in the culture industry.
The Netflix deal under discussion at the hearing forces a simple question: are Americans willing to accept an entertainment market where fewer and fewer companies set the terms of how the entertainment industry works? The decisions — from what gets made; to how it reaches audiences; to how much leverage creators and consumers have when deals go bad — are increasingly consolidating into fewer and fewer hands.
President Donald Trump already gave his answer last month when he expressed his concerns over this deal. Wednesday was Congress’ turn.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) noted that the “price and the cost” of streaming services led by Netflix has “gone up but not down” in recent years. The premise of consolidation is often “efficiency” and “consumer benefit.” The actual reality for many households has been higher prices, more fragmentation and fewer real alternatives when platforms tighten terms. That’s why the hearing’s title, “Full Stream Ahead: Competition and Consumer Choice in Digital Streaming,” wasn’t a throwaway.
This wasn’t a partisan showdown. Democrats agreed.
Rep. Becca Balint (D., Vt.) didn’t mince words when she said that “Americans don’t like these mergers. They don’t want a few giant companies controlling what they see and what they hear.”
Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) insisted the question is whether the deal concentrates power over the entertainment supply chain, pricing, production and distribution all while driving job losses and fostering weaker bargaining power in the creative trades.
Netflix commissions, produces and distributes at global scale. And Warner isn’t just a studio; it carries HBO, HBO Max, DC, and one of the deepest film and television libraries in the business. Combine the two and the merged company gains more leverage over the pipeline — from greenlight to audience.
Cinema United, representing major exhibitors, warned Congress that the merger would “further consolidate control over production and distribution” in a market that is “already highly concentrated,” which would create “direct and irreversible” consequences for theaters.
Hollywood directors, from James Cameron to Christopher Nolan, have made similar cases.
The problem in the entertainment world is that, when a buyer grows large enough, everyone upstream and downstream adjusts to its terms.
Media is both a business and an institution. The more concentrated ownership becomes, the fewer independent corporate parents remain who can resist pressure — commercial or political — without risking existential damage.
The test is not how many competitors exist. The test is whether competition still disciplines pricing and whether creators still have multiple viable buyers.
If Netflix needs Warner’s assets to “compete,” as Nadler put it, that is itself evidence of how imbalanced the market has become.
More broadly, this debate isn’t just about Netflix. It’s about whether antitrust still means anything in a sector that has been consolidating by reflex. If the default answer is always to approve, then consumer choice will soon become a user-interface illusion.
Let’s not let that happen.
And it doesn’t seem that it will. President Trump on Sunday shared a column that suggested he would take antitrust action against Netflix.
With these leaders in charge, Netflix doesn’t seem likely to get the media takeover it so desires — and for that, we should all be grateful.
Rep. Michael Flanagan is a former Republican member of Congress who served on the House Judiciary Committee
