Proposed Media Mega-Deals Test the Boundaries of US Antitrust Policy

In previous years, Disney absorbed 21st Century Fox and Amazon purchased MGM, while streaming giants like Netflix and Apple pursued vertical integration by acquiring or building out their own production studios. Now, the next chapter of consolidation may involve deals even larger in scale. Comcast is reportedly weighing a takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery—already the product of the merger between WarnerMedia and Discovery Inc.—per Bloomberg. At the same time, Nexstar Media Group is working to acquire rival Tegna Inc., a move that would combine hundreds of local television stations and reshape local news distribution across dozens of markets.

Critics have long warned that media consolidation carries antitrust risks distinct from other sectors. Beyond potential price increases or decreased output, consolidation in media can affect the diversity of viewpoints that reach the public. When a single company controls both distribution pipelines and the content itself, it can restrict competition not only in the marketplace, but in the marketplace of ideas.

Proponents of consolidation frequently cite promised “synergies,” but history suggests these benefits rarely appear. While not all mergers are harmful—some can improve technology, expand access, or reduce costs—these latest proposed deals raise concerns that they would entrench corporate gatekeeping power rather than deliver meaningful advantages to consumers.

The upcoming merger reviews will also give the Trump administration an opportunity to differentiate its approach to antitrust from that of the Biden administration and from recent court interpretations. Under President Biden, Justice Department Antitrust Division head Jonathan Kanter and Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan frequently scrutinized mergers as inherently suspect, drawing criticism for what many viewed as an ideology-driven stance that treated size itself as a harm. According to Bloomberg, this posture created uncertainty across industries and slowed innovation without producing more competitive markets.

Some courts, meanwhile, have taken a narrow view of consumer welfare by focusing almost exclusively on price and output. Current Antitrust Division head Gail Slater and FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson recently emphasized that antitrust law has always been intended to address a broader range of harms, including reductions in choice, quality, and innovation.

Under the Trump administration’s framework, the consumer welfare standard is being interpreted more broadly: if a merger yields lower prices, better products, or faster innovation, it may proceed—if it harms consumers, it will not.

Media mergers, however, often fall into the latter category. Past attempts illustrate why. When Comcast sought to acquire Time Warner Cable in 2014, a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general urged the Justice Department to block the deal. The issue was not merely overlapping cable customers or higher monthly bills; it included concerns that Comcast could gain the power to dictate terms to content producers and emerging online video competitors. The DOJ ultimately determined the merger would make Comcast an “unavoidable gatekeeper” for internet-based services, and the proposal collapsed.

Those concerns are even more pronounced today. Comcast, through Xfinity, already serves almost one-third of the U.S. broadband market and owns NBCUniversal—encompassing NBC, Telemundo, CNBC, MSNBC, Universal Pictures, and Peacock. If it were to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, the combined company would control close to 40 percent of prime-time television, two of the three largest news networks, and one of the biggest streaming catalogs in the world.

Source: Bloomberg