Whether you want to consider just the numbers or any additional outside factors, you can’t ignore what really went down between Netflix and Paramount’s bid-war for astounding 100-year-old production giant Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD).
On June 9, 2025, WBD announced its plan to split the company into Streaming & Studios and Global Networks. Following that, David Ellison, the new CEO of Paramount Skydance (PSKY), made what WBD named an “inadequate” offer of $19 per share. By Oct. 2025, with PSKY’s third bid of $23.50 per share, WBD officially announced that it was exploring its options in bids after receiving interest from multiple parties.
Nov. 2025 brought some discussion of political ties to potential sales. Bloomberg reports that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos allegedly met with President Donald Trump to discuss the “auction of WBD.” Sarandos reportedly left this conversation with the impression that Netflix wouldn’t receive opposition from the White House in the acquisition. This moment signaled that the bidding war was no longer just financial, but it was also potentially regulatory and political.
In Dec. 2025, Netflix announced its acquisition of WBD’s film studio, streaming businesses and games divisions (not including Global Network) for $82.7 billion, offering a mix of cash and stock. Just days later, however, PSKY escalated the situation by launching a massive $108.4 billion hostile takeover bid at $30 per share, arguing that its all-cash offer was more valuable and more certain for shareholders.
In Jan. 2026, after continuous hearsay from both CEOs in regard to the shareholders’ opinions, WBD publicly rejected PSKY’s amended offer, saying that it wasn’t in the best interest of its shareholders and reaffirming that Netflix’s proposal remained “superior.” In retaliation, just days later, PSKY filed a lawsuit against WBD in the Delaware Court of Chancery, essentially asking the court to force more transparency around Netflix’s bid and arguing that shareholders were not being fully informed.
At the same time, regulatory pressure began to mount. Concerns around antitrust implications, particularly regarding Netflix’s market power, became part of the broader civil conversation. Civil inquiries reportedly examined whether Netflix’s acquisition strategy could resemble “exclusionary conduct … capable of entrenching market or monopoly power.” This language tracks Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which the Legal Information Institute summarizes as “prohibiting monopolizing or attempting to monopolize trade or commerce through anti-competitive conduct.”
Would Paramount be at a similar risk of encroaching on the same section, though? Netflix’s lower per-share offer compared to Paramount’s became a defining factor in the outcome, but regulatory perception may have mattered just as much as price. By late Feb. 2026, PSKY increased its offer to $31 per share in all cash, agreeing to cover termination fees and strengthen its financial guarantees.
Ultimately, Netflix chose not to match the bid while executives underlined it would only be a deal “nice to have,” not a necessity for the growing presence that Netflix has to offer. WBD’s board was left with only the superior Paramount proposal of $31 per share, valued at around $110 billion.
While some may say this acquisition is not political, others have noted the clear regulatory contrast between the two bids. Paramount appeared to face fewer immediate antitrust concerns than Netflix, and some observers have associated that difference with CEO Ellison’s broader political connections; his father, Larry Ellison, is a close friend of Trump’s. Whether influential or just the way the business works, the higher cash offer and smoother regulatory path positioned Paramount as the winning bidder for WBD.
