More than a dozen politicians and former senior policymakers in the United Kingdom have written to the head of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) requesting a full competition review of Netflix's $83 billion offer for Warner Bros Discovery, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.
The letter, addressed to Sarah Cardell, chief executive of the CMA, argued the acquisition "will cement an already dominant player" in the television streaming market and warned it could result in "a substantial lessening of competition with damaging consequences for consumers," the FT said, citing the correspondence.
Those pressing for the CMA inquiry include a number of prominent figures who have previously occupied senior government and broadcasting roles. Signatories named in the FT report are Chris Smith, Oliver Dowden and Karen Bradley - all of whom have served as the UK secretary of state for culture, media and sport - along with Tony Hall, the former director-general of the BBC. The letter was also signed by Guy Black, chair of the News Media Association and deputy chair of Telegraph Media Group, and Tina Stowell, the former leader of the House of Lords, the FT said.
The intervention in the UK adds to a broader wave of political and regulatory resistance to Netflix's proposed takeover. In the United States, members of Congress have criticised the transaction, describing it as an antitrust "nightmare" for consumers and creative professionals. Reuters reported that Netflix's proposed deal has been encountering political pushback and regulatory scrutiny.
European Union antitrust officials are also preparing to assess the situation. Bloomberg reported last week that EU regulators are likely to examine rival bids by Netflix and Paramount Skydance for Warner Bros at the same time, creating an unusual simultaneous review of competing offers.
Requests for comment to Warner Bros, Netflix and the CMA were not immediately answered, and Reuters said it could not immediately confirm the FT report. The letter to the CMA and the wider responses from lawmakers and regulators highlight the regulatory and political hurdles that the $83 billion proposal continues to face.
Contextual note - The matter remains a developing regulatory and political issue, with the exact outcome dependent on decisions by competition authorities and potential further interventions by policymakers.