Consumer Protection or Ideology? Inside the Netflix–Warner Bros. Hearing

Earlier this week, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) chief revenue and strategy officer Bruce Campbell testified before a Senate subcommittee hearing intended to “examin[e] the competitive impact of the proposed Netflix–Warner Bros. transaction.”

Those familiar with many lawmakers’ antipathy toward big business per se anticipated the skepticism of the Netflix–WBD merger that would permeate the proceeding. Yet what began as the habitual recitation of shallow antitrust concerns—the risks of vertical foreclosure and monopsony power—soon devolved into a political inquisition of the media executives, aimed at airing partisan grudges harbored against the two companies.

From the outset it was clear that far more than market concentration and the consumer welfare standard would be discussed. Sen. Booker (D-N.J.) made it clear that this examination was to extend far beyond any subject contained within the hearing’s description. “We have a real crisis in our nation right now,” he stated, warning against “a level of corporate concentration like has not been seen for generations going all the way back to the trust-busting days of Roosevelt.”

Although Sarandos emphatically reassured the committee that “TV and film have never been more competitive than they are today, and [the Netflix–WBD] deal will not change that,” the subcommittee nevertheless proceeded as if Netflix held a monopoly in the entertainment industry.

Despite both executives’ determination to discuss exclusively the topic of competition, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) diverted the conversation to “labor impacts,” accusing Netflix of a “massive shift in production overseas.” Sarandos noted that the chart Sen. Hawley referenced was titled “Los Angeles.” The exchange came moments after Sarandos reiterated that Netflix “[led] production in the United States and intend[ed] to keep growing it,” while also noting the company’s ongoing construction of a production hub in New Jersey.

Sen. Hawley then pivoted to questioning Netflix’s “ideological commitment.” Prepared to defend the consumer benefits of the proposed Netflix–WBD merger, Sarandos looked bewildered as the Senator demanded to know why “so much of Netflix’s content for children promotes a transgender ideology.” Beyond replying, “respectfully, sir, it’s because it’s inaccurate,” Sarandos could do little to assuage Sen. Hawley’s misgivings born of “personal experience.” The Senator summarized his objections plainly: “My concern is that you don’t share my values or those of many other American parents and you want the United States government to allow you to become one of the largest, if not the largest, streaming monopolists in the world.”

For the rest of the hearing, questioning of the executives remained largely pretextual.

Having probed Sarandos on the content of Netflix’s tweets from six years earlier, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) laid bare the nature of his antitrust allegations: “You have Susan Rice on your board, the founder of sort of Barack Obama’s DEI agenda. 99 percent of your employees contribute to Democrats, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Your content’s oversexualized for kids. You’re engaged in this very woke programming overwhelmingly.” He stated that “the question before this committee” was “why in the world would [the government] give a seal of approval…to make [Netflix] the largest behemoth on the planet related to content?”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) steered the discussion even further away from the acquisition, and things quickly went off the rails. “Are we on stolen land?” he asked rhetorically, referring to remarks made during the 2026 Grammy Awards ceremony. Cruz’s indignant monologue focused more on what he described as “nothing resembling journalism anymore.” Even Sen. Cruz’s question—“When CNN showed riots and fires behind them and you put a chyron, ‘mostly peaceful but fiery protests,’ was that journalism?”—which prompted Campbell to remind the committee that “in fact, [CNN is] not part of this transaction”—served merely as a pretext to castigate CNN for having “no independence other than hating Donald Trump.”

On the Democratic side, likewise, the inquiry appeared largely perfunctory; minds appeared largely made up.

The hearing revealed an alarming truth: it did not matter how well-prepared Sarandos and Campbell were to address the effects of the Netflix–WBD deal on consumer interests or competition. No one on the committee seemed to care about that. Instead, members of both parties preoccupied themselves with politically-charged concerns, bluntly interrogating the witnesses about which political faction the potential Netflix–WBD deal would ultimately favor.

While Republicans may have thought they scored points with the “anti-woke” populace, they unwittingly accomplished something else. GOP members may well have given Democrats political space to turn the tables whenever they inevitably control the House or Senate and scrutinize a deal because companies aren’t “woke” enough. 

Discussions about market concentration and consumer welfare are healthy to have. Derailing a hearing and talking about “stolen land,” “transgender ideology,” and other irrelevant topics is a waste of time and taxpayer money.