On Monday, Sept. 21, 2026, Paramount Skydance emerged victorious from a with a group of U.S. states, led by California’s Attorney General, who argued that its attempt to merge with Warner Brothers would violate and lead to a monopoly. The company made a number of concessions for the purpose of winning this case, notably that it will abide by a news oversight committee and fulfill a yearly movie quota. While there is value in both of these concessions, the merger has remained the center of much controversy, debate and criticism.
A lot of the negative attention that Paramount has received from this battle has been tied to accusations of an attempted monopoly. Massive consolidation of large corporations, especially within the media and entertainment industries, is something that has seemingly become more common within the past decades, a notorious example of this being and its expansive list of acquisitions and mergers. Monopolies have been controversial in the public eye for a long time, with much public debate surrounding them, the U.S. government passing laws for the purpose of keeping them in check, and a being made as a commentary on them.
Monopolies have such a negative reputation because of the fact that they are inherently anticompetitive, and the lack of competition often removes a lot of the incentive corporations have to be kind to consumers and employees. According to the , the Paramount merger has a possibility of causing streaming prices to go up, CNN and CBS could experience major changes or ideological shifts, and Hollywood jobs could be lost. With power centralized to a smaller and smaller group of people, and with less competition within the industry, the interests of the company will likely shift its priorities and business practices to reflect this, focusing on the company itself and the people who run it rather than on the well-being of its customers or employees. This is a pattern supported by eMarketer’s principal analyst , who, while talking about Disney’s merger with 21st Century Fox in 2019, said, “In general, these deals aren't for the consumer's benefit. I can't think of a single time that two media companies merged and suddenly started offering lower prices.”
While it could be argued that mergers and monopolies are not without to the consumer, and that there are positive effects of the Paramount-Warner deal, such as an allocation of media libraries into a single, more easily accessible service and a possible increase in film releases, it is hard to deny that monopolies usually provide the most benefit to the company. Monopolies are not made to benefit consumers, to make better products, to lower prices or to create jobs; they are made to give a to uncaring corporations.
In my opinion, regardless of the result of the trial, Paramount should not be allowed to go through with this merger. The act would not only be in violation of the antitrust laws, which were created to prevent situations exactly like this, but it would lead to a consolidation of power and control while depriving consumers and employees of protection and agency. We have already seen the negative effects of monopolies on prices and job security, and in a time of political and social turmoil, a possible threat to two major news sources is something we should take seriously. A vast majority of the positive aspects of mergers and acquisitions like this one are on the side of the corporations, while the consumers and the employees are left with less and less. In a time when it feels like corporations continue to engage in anti-consumer practices, is it not right for the consumers to be against it?
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of 大象传媒 University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, 大象传媒 University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.