Sarandos to face Senate antitrust probe over $83 billion Warner deal

Netflix co‑chief executive Ted Sarandos is expected to testify in February before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that has convened to scrutinize the company’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming and studio assets, a transaction valued at roughly $82.7 billion (commonly rounded to $83 billion). Warner confirmed that executive Bruce Campbell will also appear for the company.

The hearing, announced in reports on Jan. 22, intensifies a months‑long collision between Silicon Valley streaming scale and Washington’s renewed appetite for antitrust enforcement in media. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee chairman Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has signaled skepticism, saying there are “a lot of antitrust red flags here” and warning readers to “buckle up for an intense antitrust hearing in the Senate.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts called the deal “an anti‑monopoly nightmare,” heightening bipartisan attention.

Lawmakers will probe whether the deal would consolidate too much power in one platform and how that concentration could reshape how Americans access film and television. Netflix executives have pushed back on dominance claims, arguing the company occupies a fractional share of viewing and advertising activity. On its fourth‑quarter earnings call, co‑CEO Greg Peters said the service accounts for “less than 10% of TV time in all major markets” and is “just about 7% of the addressable market in terms of consumer and ad spend,” framing the transaction as one that leaves “tons of room ahead of us.”

Beyond market share math, senators are likely to examine concrete operational commitments Netflix has offered to blunt antitrust concerns. Company leaders have said the acquisition would expand U.S. production capacity, sustain long‑term investment in original content and preserve jobs, with a pledge to maintain a 45‑day theatrical window for Warner Bros. films. In a Dec. 17 shareholder letter, Sarandos and Peters wrote they were “highly confident that regulators will see this deal for what it is: pro‑consumer, pro‑innovation, pro‑worker, pro‑creator, pro‑growth, and pro‑competition.”

Critics in Hollywood and beyond remain unconvinced. Writers, theater owners and other industry groups have warned that the deal could lead to job losses, theater closures and higher prices for consumers. Congressional testimony from industry representatives has echoed those fears, arguing that vertical consolidation could concentrate decision‑making in ways that disadvantage independent producers, local exhibition chains and labor negotiating power.

The contest for Warner’s assets is unfolding amid an active takeover fight. Paramount Skydance has mounted a hostile bid and extended its tender offer deadline to Feb. 20 as it presses a rival strategy to win shareholder support. That parallel campaign raises the stakes of the Senate hearing: whatever regulatory signal emerges could influence investor calculations, board decisions and competing suitors.

The hearing will test how Washington balances the promise of platform investment against the risks of concentrated media power. For Netflix, the stakes are strategic and cultural: acquiring Warner’s deep library and production apparatus would accelerate global content ambitions but also place Netflix under intensified regulatory scrutiny and political crosshairs. For creators, theaters and audiences, the outcome could reshape distribution windows, bargaining leverage and the economics of storytelling in an industry already remaking itself around streaming, advertising and global scale.