Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Netflix-Warner Bros. Merger

Conservatives don’t reflexively oppose corporate mergers. We believe in free markets, in the power of competition, and in the freedom of businesses to grow when they win on merit.

But we also believe in limits, especially when a single company seeks to consolidate cultural and economic power in ways that threaten the marketplace itself. This is exactly what the proposed Netflix–Warner Bros. merger does.

Let’s first dispense with K Street’s talking points. This deal isn’t about “unlocking synergies,” “driving innovation,” or “competing globally.”

It’s about one company—Netflix—attempting to cement itself as the dominant, unchallengeable gatekeeper of American entertainment and becoming more of a monopoly.

If conservatives learned anything from the last 20 years of tech consolidation, it’s that letting one firm control the channels of communication, culture, and distribution is a recipe for ideological capture, higher prices, and less consumer choice.

Netflix’s growth strategy has always been simple: to get big fast, build a global moat and use scale to squeeze out smaller rivals. It was a winning formula when streaming was young and alternatives were limited, but the market has matured.

Consumers have more choices than ever: Disney+, Peacock, Paramount+, Amazon Prime Video, and local broadcasters offering digital services. That’s competition doing what it’s supposed to do.

A merger with Warner Bros.—one of the last remaining studios with a true global footprint—would shatter such progress.

Instead of competing on quality and innovation, Netflix could simply absorb the studio owning some of America’s most valuable franchises and content libraries. This is not “efficiency.” It’s cornering the market.

With over 300 million subscribers and a dominant position as the global leader in streaming, Netflix already maintained outsized control of the entertainment market even before attempting to buy Warner Bros.

The truth is Netflix has long been a monopoly. Allowing it to take control of Warner Bros. would hand it overwhelming dominance of the video streaming space. 

Conservatives don’t defend companies that game the market instead of competing in it.

Warner Bros. isn’t just another studio. It owns the DC Universe, Harry Potter, Looney Tunes, Turner Classic Movies, HBO’s prestige catalog, and generations of American cultural heritage.

Whoever controls that library controls a significant part of the cultural narrative.

Conservatives have long sounded the alarm on Silicon Valley’s influence over speech, censorship, and the shaping of public discourse, and rightfully so.

Yet, somehow, we’re told not to worry when the largest global streaming platform wants to absorb a century-old American studio. Let’s not forget Netflix is run out of California, governed by opaque algorithms and accountable to no cultural norms beyond what sells internationally.

If conservatives are concerned about Hollywood’s ideological tilt today, imagine what happens when one company becomes the distributor, creator and curator of the majority of Americans’ entertainment.

By merging with Warner’s portfolio, Netflix would inherit leverage across sectors to which it has never been accountable.

This isn’t creative destruction. It’s regulatory arbitrage. And conservatives should call it what it is.

It’s possible the merger was never intended to go through.

Even if Netflix succeeds only in paralyzing Warner Bros. and preventing competitors from acquiring it for the next year or two while the regulatory process plays out, doing so alone is worth billions to Netflix as it extends its monopolistic lead in streaming. Lawmakers should not allow that behavior to go unpunished.

Too often, corporate lobbyists try to convince conservatives that opposing a merger is tantamount to opposing capitalism. That’s nonsense.

Capitalism depends on competition—not consolidation. As Adam Smith—the father of modern economics—recognized, free markets fail when the “wretched spirit” of a monopolists becomes so large that others cannot meaningfully compete.

Hence why this merger is so problematic.

Netflix, armed with an acquisition of Warner Bros., would be able to raise prices with impunity, reduce consumer choice and dictate the terms of distribution not only in Hollywood but across global markets. Once Netflix becomes the dominant platform worldwide, there’s no reason to think it will behave differently from other tech monopolies we’ve spent years trying to rein in.

Allowing one company to consolidate this much influence over American storytelling is not just bad economics—it’s bad for the republic.

The Netflix–Warner Bros. merger is unnecessary for business, harmful to consumers, and dangerous for cultural pluralism. Conservatives should oppose it not because we distrust markets, but because we understand what makes them work.

The post Why Conservatives Should Oppose the Netflix-Warner Bros. Merger appeared first on The Daily Signal.