The Justice Department is scrutinizing Netflix’s power in streaming as it weighs whether the company should be allowed to buy one of Hollywood’s crown jewels. Investigators have opened a broad antitrust review of Netflix’s business practices in connection with its pursuit of Warner Bros, signaling that regulators see the proposed deal as a potential turning point for competition in entertainment. The probe reaches beyond a single transaction and into how Netflix has built and wielded its influence across the industry.
At stake is not only the future of Warner Bros but also the balance of power between tech-driven platforms and traditional studios that still supply much of the world’s film and television. By casting a wide net, the Justice Department is testing whether the streaming era’s dominant player has crossed the line from aggressive competitor to anticompetitive gatekeeper.
What the Justice Department is investigating
The Justice Department has launched a formal antitrust inquiry into whether Netflix has become an anticompetitive “monopoly” as it pursues a Warner Bros deal. According to reporting on the probe, officials are examining whether Netflix’s size and conduct give it outsized leverage over rivals, suppliers and creative talent in ways that could harm competition if it absorbs a major studio. The investigation is framed around the proposed acquisition but is explicitly focused on the company’s broader business operations, not just the merger paperwork, which is why the department is treating it as a potential monopolisation case rather than a routine merger review, as reflected in detailed accounts of the DOJ probe.
In its outreach to industry players, the department has requested information on how Netflix negotiates with studios, how it structures licensing and exclusivity, and whether its practices make it harder for competitors to secure comparable content. One report notes that the subpoena language points to a “monopolisation investigation,” a signal that officials are looking at patterns of behavior over time rather than a single transaction. That framing aligns with a broader shift in antitrust enforcement under President Donald Trump’s administration, which has shown a willingness to challenge large technology and media platforms when regulators believe their conduct could entrench dominance, a posture underscored by descriptions of the department’s wide net in this case.
Why Warner Bros is the flashpoint
The focus on Warner Bros reflects how central the studio is to the global content ecosystem and why its ownership matters so much for competition. Netflix and Paramount Skydance covet Warner Bros for its leading film and television studios, extensive content library and franchises that stretch from superhero blockbusters to prestige dramas. Control of that catalog would give any buyer a powerful arsenal of intellectual property that can be repackaged, rebooted and spun into streaming exclusives, which is why regulators are paying close attention to how a Netflix acquisition could reshape bargaining power across Hollywood, as highlighted in coverage of how Netflix and Paramount are circling the asset.
For Netflix, acquiring Warner Bros for its studios and library would accelerate a strategic shift from relying heavily on licensed content to owning more of what it distributes. That move could reduce its dependence on third party suppliers and lock in long term control over franchises that competitors might otherwise license. For regulators, the concern is that folding such a storied studio into a dominant streaming platform could make it harder for smaller services and independent distributors to access must have titles, and could further tilt the market toward a handful of vertically integrated giants. The Justice Department’s decision to tie its broader conduct investigation to this specific deal suggests it sees the Warner Bros transaction as a potential tipping point rather than just another consolidation in a crowded field.
How the probe reaches beyond the merger
Although the Warner Bros deal is the immediate trigger, the Justice Department’s approach indicates that it is scrutinizing Netflix’s entire playbook in streaming. Investigators are looking at whether the company’s scale lets it dictate terms that smaller rivals and content partners have little choice but to accept, and whether those terms have changed as Netflix has grown. That includes questions about exclusivity windows, bundling of rights across territories and formats, and any contractual provisions that might discourage partners from working with competing platforms. Reports on the inquiry describe a “wide net” that goes well beyond the mechanics of the proposed acquisition and into the company’s day to day business practices, a scope reflected in accounts of the DOJ casts wide approach.
By framing the inquiry as a monopolisation investigation, the department is signaling that it wants to understand whether Netflix’s conduct has systematically disadvantaged competitors over time. That could include examining whether the company has used its data on viewer behavior to undercut rivals’ shows, whether it has structured deals to keep key content off competing services, or whether its relationships with hardware makers and telecom providers give it preferential placement. While the details of the subpoena remain confidential, the description of its breadth suggests that regulators are not content to simply impose conditions on a single merger but are instead weighing whether structural remedies or ongoing oversight might be necessary if they conclude that Netflix’s dominance has crossed legal lines, a concern echoed in reporting that the subpoena language points directly to a monopolisation investigation.
Industry stakes for studios, rivals and creators
The outcome of the probe will ripple across studios that still depend on Netflix as a buyer and distributor, even as they build their own streaming services. If regulators conclude that Netflix has used its bargaining power to squeeze partners, studios could gain leverage to push for more favorable terms or diversify their distribution strategies. At the same time, a blocked or heavily conditioned Warner Bros deal could leave the studio in play for other bidders, including Paramount Skydance, reshaping alliances across Hollywood. The Justice Department’s willingness to test Netflix’s conduct sends a message to other large platforms that aggressive dealmaking and exclusive arrangements will face closer scrutiny when they involve assets as central as Warner Bros for the global content pipeline.
For rival streamers and smaller services, the investigation could open space to argue that they have been boxed out of key content or disadvantaged by Netflix’s scale. If regulators push for behavioral remedies, those could include commitments to license certain titles on fair terms or to avoid contract clauses that limit partners’ ability to work with competitors. Creators and talent agencies will also be watching closely, since Netflix’s dominance in commissioning and distributing original series has given it significant influence over budgets, marketing and creative control. Any shift in the company’s bargaining power, whether through regulatory action or a blocked merger, would reshape how deals are structured across the industry, a dynamic that underpins the Justice Department’s interest in how the Warner Bros deal could hurt the competition.
What the probe signals about antitrust in the streaming era
The Justice Department’s move fits into a broader rethinking of antitrust in digital markets, where scale and data can create durable advantages even when consumers enjoy low prices and abundant choice. In the streaming world, the key question is whether a platform like Netflix can become so central that studios, advertisers and viewers effectively have no realistic alternative, even if several services technically exist. By tying a conduct investigation to a marquee merger, regulators are testing a more holistic approach that looks at how acquisitions, exclusive content and platform power interact over time. That strategy mirrors recent efforts to challenge consolidation in other sectors where technology and media converge, and it suggests that future deals involving major studios or large streaming platforms will face similarly intense scrutiny.
