Paramount (With Jared Kushner And Saudi Help) Launches $108 Billion Hostile Takeover Bid For Warner Brothers
from the no-means-no dept
Last week Netflix announced a $82.7 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers, elbowing out rival acquisition bids (for now) by Comcast/NBC and Paramount/CBS. But the deal still needs regulatory approval from Trump, who has already stated several times that he’d prefer it if his bestie new owner of CBS, right wing billionaire Larry Ellison, comes away victorious.
Even before the deal was finalized, Paramount and/or the Trump administration had begun seeding complaints in Republican-friendly media that the bidding process was unfair to Larry Ellison and CBS/Paramount, and that the Trump administration is concerned about the antitrust impact of a Netflix Warner Brothers combination.
Now Paramount has announced that it’s trying to appeal directly to shareholders with a $108 billion hostile takeover bid:
“The tender offer is for $30 per share, all in cash, a contrast to Netflix’s offer, which is a $27.75 mix of cash and some stock, with shareholders also getting a stake in the linear TV spinout. Netflix is also only buying WBD’s streaming and studios business, while Paramount is pursuing the whole company, making for a complicated comparison, depending on how you value the linear TV business.”
Curiously omitted from Paramount’s press release is the fact that the $108 billion bid includes money from Jared Kushner’s private equity firm Affinity Partners, as well as funding from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar. This is pretty clearly part of the Ellison family bid to dominate the entirety of U.S. media after their successful acquisition of CBS and Paramount.
If that’s not clear enough: one of the president’s top billionaire donors and son in law are working alongside Saudi Arabia and other foreign autocrats in a bid to dominate the shitty remnants of U.S. mainstream media. It sounds hyperbolic and alarmist when you say it out loud, but it’s no less true.
If you read this recent profile piece on Paramount’s new executives under Larry and David Ellison, you walk away with the sense that they’re kind of assholes. The kind of men who loathe actual creatives, don’t understand what “no” means, and are mostly interested in a company that builds lowest-common denominator engagement bait barfed from the dreams a dim 12-year-old boy trapped in 1989.
To be clear, any media consolidation, including a Netflix acquisition of Warner Brothers, is likely bad for the sector, consumers, and labor. The huge debt accumulated from these deals always involves a ton of layoffs, corner cutting, quality erosion, and price hikes as the remaining company tries to dig out from under the debt while still providing Wall Street its demand for impossible quarterly growth.
The correct antitrust play here, which wouldn’t happen under either U.S. political party (but is even less likely under Trump), is to put an end entirely to harmful, pointless consolidation to protect labor, consumers, and market competition, and to viciously protect independent, diverse media ownership.
But in a country too corrupt to engage with serious antitrust enforcement, of the three bidders for Warner Brothers, Netflix is likely the least bad option.
They’ve historically been the least lodged up the Trump administration’s colon (though that will change as they curry favor for regulatory approval), and their lack of as many redundant business units means there theoretically should be fewer layoffs.
Ellison ownership of CBS, CNN, HBO, Warner Brothers, Paramount, and a part of TikTok could prove to be significantly more problematic. And not just because of consolidation. The Trump administration and Ellison clearly want to build an authoritarian-friendly propaganda machine propped up by its infotainment arm. Think Fox News and Fox, but somehow worse and even less ethical.
They’re following the media domination playbook seen in other authoritarian-led countries like Hungary. Consolidate and acquire everything, and steadily replace already shaky journalism with gibberish and agitprop ahead of efforts to permanently retain power. The only upside here is that many of these zealots and nepobabies may not have the competency to pull it off.
The Netflix Warner Brothers bid includes a $5.8 billion breakup fee, suggesting that Netflix is likely to fight tooth and nail against any hostile takeover bids or any sort of strange, pro-Ellison shenanigans by the Trump administration and its Saudi allies (which as we noted last week, were going to be all but guaranteed in the months and weeks to come).
The hostile takeover bid guarantees months or years of legal fighting. But it also guarantees months of performative bullshit by Trump, Ellison, Kushner and right wing media about how Netflix ownership would be a woke antitrust nightmare, but letting the Saudis, Larry Ellison and his nepobaby son David dominate U.S. media would be a delightful, populist spritzer.
Expect a lot of shitty establishment corporate journalism on this that normalizes and helps prop up the phony gambit by Ellison and Trump. And a lot of kayfabe from all of these authoritarian-enabling assholes, suddenly pretending they appreciate “robust regulatory scrutiny” and a “healthy debate on market impacts based on the merits,” despite having a violent disdain for both.
But if Netflix truly digs in and doubles down (again probably the best of a bunch of bad options), it’s a fight that could outlast an unhealthy Trump and his increasingly unpopular administration entirely.
Filed Under: antitrust, competition, donald trump, hostile takeover, larry ellison, mergers, streaming, video
Companies: affinity partners, netflix, paramount, skyedance, warner bros. discovery
BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to




Comments on “Paramount (With Jared Kushner And Saudi Help) Launches $108 Billion Hostile Takeover Bid For Warner Brothers”
has to be said
Tha, tha, thats All folks.
Rabbit season, Duck Season.
Should have taken that Left at Albuquerque.
Sufferen Succotash.
Re:
Can someone at your retirement home please take away your Internet access?
RIP Cinemas
As Variety reported, whoever buys WB will bring about the end of the age of the cinema. It is fitting bc it will heard the end of that generation that loved the cinema, the Boomers.
Re:
The main reasons I’ll be happy for the end of the cinema is that they are releasing movies too long for my bladder to handle. While studios and directors are fighting against efforts to bring back intermissions.
Having a pause button makes the viewing experience so much better.
Re: Re:
Made worse by the existence of brew pub theaters.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, made worse in that way. Better in many others!
Re: Re: Re:2
Honestly, the availability of a microbrew and quality bar food is the thing I’ve enjoyed the most from the last few times I’ve gone to the theater and I can enjoy those without the movie.
Re: Re: Re:3
And vice-versa, but I sure like having both.
Now, actually finding the time to do it, that’s a whole other question. I have a two-year-old and it’s going to be awhile before they’re old enough to go to the movies (maybe by the time Star Wars comes back to theaters in 2027?) and longer still before they’re old enough for the theaters that serve beer.
Re:
Warner Bros. has produced a bunch of silly or even dumb movies for decades, but at least it cares a little about movie theaters (not saying that a streaming service cannot produce good content).
Netflix only uses movie theaters as way to earn some awards to trick people into thinking it cares about something else that cheap content.
At least, they are both talking the same language, when Ellisons have certainly not seen a good movie for ages and may not even know the difference between a movie theater and a theater, and certainly despise both. Warner would have to produce 10s AI-generated TikTok videos as long as it makes more money that any DC Comics or Harry Potter movie ever produced. And if you’re more The Shining or Casablanca, you would only find them in Blu-rays.
Re: Re:
Does it? Theaters are a distribution method that the big studios don’t own. Because it was judged an anti-trust violation for them to own the production, distribution, and exhibition. I’m guessing they’ve been annoyed about that ever since, because they seem to be working to re-create exactly that system in a contemporary setting—as is now legal: “As part of a 2019 review of its ongoing decrees, the Department of Justice issued a two-year sunsetting notice for the Paramount Decree in August 2020, believing the antitrust restriction was no longer necessary as the old model could never be recreated in contemporary settings.”
Re:
You missed “those who loved cinema” by several generations in either direction. Especially in the past.
Re:
What an odd thing to say.
I admit I don’t get out to movies as often as I used to, but I assure you that when I do, most of the audience is under the age of 60.
Re: Re:
The statement was that the boomers—being those roughly ages 60 through 80—”loved” the cinema, in the past tense. Assuming the comment you replied to were true, your observation would be as expected, unless there were an unreasonably large number of people above age 80. And even if the boomers still love cinema, about 75% of Americans are under age 60, so probably most (at least 50%) of the audience will be, unless it’s a rather extreme difference in “love”.
Here are some statistics by year, covering “the North American movie territory (consisting of the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and Guam).” Tickets sold peaked at 1,569,961,063 in 2002, and are less that half that now. But they don’t break it down by age, or by who “loves” going or just finds it likable enough. Also, most sites I could find were averaging across entire national populations, which doesn’t tell us how many people see at least one film per year, or how many of those see “many” (by some definition that could be a reasonable proxy for “love”).
I wonder if we will see a situation where Trump blocks Netflix, while Europe blocks CBS/Paramount.
Or if Trump will kill the CBS/Paramount deal because he’s having a tantrum over a Marjorie Taylor Greene interview:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-12-08/trump-lashes-out-60-minutes-cbs-new-ownership-marjorie-taylor-greene-interview
Re:
If all 3 happen at once, that would be a achievement in of itself.
And we’ll get to go through this all again in a few years when there’s a President who interprets the TikTok law about foreign media ownership to require the Saudis to divest.
And shareholders are dumbshits. Fuck the “market”. $30 bucks now, look at teh shiney! Followed by immediate inevitable destruction.
For what it’s worth, this hostile takeover attempt is basically dead in the water unless WBD’s shareholders are especially stupid. Netflix only wants the studio part of WBD, with Discovery being spun off into its own thing which can be sold off separately, which would net said shareholders much more than what Paramount is offering for the whole thing.
But Ellison wants all of it, not just Discovery, but Netflix doesn’t want the cable side, so they have a better offer unless the shareholders are really undervaluing the Discovery side, which I doubt. It also doesn’t help that splitting up WBD into seperate entities for more buyout profit was Zazlav’s plan from the start (but Paramount was aggressively pushing to buy out the whole thing) and apparently he really hates Ellison and doesn’t like that there’s Saudi money involved.
There’s nothing bad that could happen if a Saudi backed company takes over Warner bros it’s not like saudia Arabia is in favor of censorship or the torture of journalists
At least Netflix is an American company that’s not owned by fascists or extremists
Most American media corporate are now owned by conservative
billionaires
There’s plenty of people who still love to go to cinemas and watch films on a big screen
Warner also owns dc comics and a gaming company
The last superman film was very good