Hollywood's Survival Gambit: Is Consolidation the New Competition?

NEW YORK, NY – June 19, 2026 – In an era of heightened antitrust scrutiny, the idea of two media giants merging typically sends alarm bells ringing from Washington D.C. to state capitals. Yet, a compelling counter-narrative is emerging from an unlikely source. George Jepsen, who spent eight years as Connecticut’s Attorney General enforcing antitrust laws, has publicly endorsed the proposed merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery. His argument is a direct challenge to conventional wisdom: in the modern streaming wars, he contends, such a merger isn't about creating a monopoly, but about forging a viable challenger to the Big Tech behemoths that already dominate the landscape.

Jepsen’s intervention reframes the entire debate. “The central question state Attorneys General should ask as they review this transaction,” he stated, “is would blocking the merger actually help consumers, workers and competition — or would it simply strengthen Netflix, Amazon, Disney and Google-owned YouTube?” For business leaders and policymakers, this question cuts to the heart of a dilemma defining the digital age: how do you regulate competition when the field is already tilted by trillion-dollar tech platforms?

The New Antitrust Calculus

The case for the merger, as laid out by Jepsen, rests on a stark assessment of the current market. The streaming world is not a level playing field. Netflix, by itself, commands nearly a third of all U.S. streaming viewership. When combined with Amazon's Prime Video, Disney's bundle, and Google's YouTube, these four players control the vast majority of the market. They entered the industry with capital, global distribution, and existing subscriber bases that dwarf legacy media companies.

Against this backdrop, the proposed combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery looks less like a titan in the making and more like a strategic alliance for survival. According to current market data, a merged entity would hold an SVOD market share of approximately 20%. This would position it as a strong competitor, but would still likely place it behind Netflix and Amazon, each hovering around 21-22% share. As Jepsen bluntly puts it, “This is not a monopoly forming. This is two smaller competitors struggling to survive in a market increasingly dominated by Big Tech.”

Crucially, Jepsen’s argument is grounded in the government's own rulebook. The 2023 Merger Guidelines, issued by the DOJ and FTC, established a new, more aggressive framework. They state that a merger creating a firm with over 30% market share is “presumed to substantially lessen competition.” With a combined share falling well below this threshold, the deal escapes the most straightforward trigger for a legal challenge. This fact-based defense is designed to appeal to the analytical rigor of regulators who, as Jepsen notes from experience, must base their decisions on “facts and market realities rather than the pressure of a news cycle.”

A Lifeline for Consumers and Creators?

The business implications extend directly to the American consumer's wallet and the creative community's livelihood. Since 2021, the average household's streaming bill has climbed by nearly 26%, forcing families to juggle multiple subscriptions in an increasingly expensive and fragmented entertainment landscape. Jepsen posits that a stronger, combined Paramount-WBD could offer a more compelling, consolidated content bundle, creating “downward pressure on costs for families who are already stretched thin.”

Of course, consumer advocates worry that less competition ultimately leads to higher prices. The core of the debate for regulators will be to determine if a market with four dominant players and one new, stronger challenger is healthier than a market with three dominant players and several smaller, struggling competitors.

Then there is the human cost of the industry's transformation. The entertainment sector has shed more than 15,000 jobs since 2021 as studios have tightened their belts. Proponents of the merger argue that a financially stronger, combined entity would be better positioned to increase investment in content. “Increased studio output means more productions, more paychecks and more consistent work for the people who create these films from the ground up,” Jepsen argues. To assuage fears from theater owners, Paramount has publicly committed to producing 30 films per year and maintaining a 45-day theatrical window. Proponents point to the Amazon-MGM merger, which saw MGM's theatrical output jump from 4 films in 2025 to 14 in 2026, as evidence that such deals can boost, not hinder, production.

A View from the Nutmeg State

Jepsen’s advocacy may seem unusual for a former official from a state not immediately synonymous with Hollywood. But his intervention highlights an often-overlooked reality. “Connecticut isn't Hollywood, but our state has a greater stake in the entertainment and media economy than most people realize,” he explains. The state is home to a significant media ecosystem, including global players like ESPN, NBC Sports, WWE, A&E Networks, and the headquarters of Charter Communications.

This deep economic tie means that decisions about media consolidation have a direct ripple effect on Connecticut’s businesses, tax base, and workforce. Jepsen’s perspective is that of a leader who understands that the health of the entire media industry—not just the studios in California—is interconnected. His voice carries the weight of someone who has had to balance national antitrust principles with local economic realities, lending a unique credibility to his analysis that may resonate with his former colleagues across the country.

Navigating the Regulatory Gauntlet

Despite the carefully constructed arguments, the path to approval is anything but certain. The very 2023 Merger Guidelines that provide the 30% market share safe harbor also give regulators more tools and a mandate to be more aggressive. The guidelines lowered the threshold for what constitutes a “highly concentrated” market and empower enforcers to look at a wider range of potential harms, including the impact on labor markets and the elimination of a potential future competitor.

“While the combined market share might not trigger the primary presumption of harm, the deal will still face a tough, skeptical review,” commented one antitrust law professor. “Regulators will be under immense pressure from public interest groups to challenge any major media merger. They will scrutinize the deal's potential impact on every level of the supply chain, from independent producers to the crew on set.”

State Attorneys General, who often coordinate their reviews, will be a critical battleground. As Jepsen acknowledges, they are being actively lobbied by opponents of the deal. Ultimately, these AGs, along with their federal counterparts at the DOJ and FTC, face a profound choice. They must decide whether to apply traditional antitrust doctrine to protect the existing number of competitors, or to adopt a more dynamic view that allows legacy players to consolidate in order to mount a credible challenge against the unparalleled power of Big Tech. The outcome will not only shape the future of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery, but will also send a powerful signal about the future of competition itself in the digital economy.