paramount

Supreme Court to decide how 1988 videotape privacy law applies to online video

facebook pixel, Meta Pixel, paramount, Policy, Supreme Court / Rejus Almole / January 27, 2026

Salazar v. Paramount hinges on video privacy law’s definition of “consumer.”

Credit: Getty Images | Ernesto Ageitos

The Supreme Court is taking up a case on whether Paramount violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing a user’s viewing history to Facebook. The case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, hinges on the law’s definition of the word “consumer.”

Salazar filed a class action against Paramount in 2022, alleging that it “violated the VPPA by disclosing his personally identifiable information to Facebook without consent,” Salazar’s petition to the Supreme Court said. Salazar had signed up for an online newsletter through 247Sports.com, a site owned by Paramount, and had to provide his email address in the process. Salazar then used 247Sports.com to view videos while logged in to his Facebook account.

“As a result, Paramount disclosed his personally identifiable information—including his Facebook ID and which videos he watched—to Facebook,” the petition said. “The disclosures occurred automatically because of the Facebook Pixel Paramount installed on its website. Facebook and Paramount then used this information to create and display targeted advertising, which increased their revenues.”

The 1988 law defines consumer as “any renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” The phrase “video tape service provider” is defined to include providers of “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials,” and thus arguably applies to more than just sellers of tapes.

The legal question for the Supreme Court “is whether the phrase ‘goods or services from a video tape service provider,’ as used in the VPPA’s definition of ‘consumer,’ refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services,” Salazar’s petition said. The Supreme Court granted his petition to hear the case in a list of orders released yesterday.

Courts disagree on defining “consumer”

The Facebook Pixel at the center of the lawsuit is now called the Meta Pixel. The Pixel is a piece of JavaScript code that can be added to a website to track visitors’ activity “and optimize your advertising performance,” as Meta describes it.

Salazar lost his case at a federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, and then lost an appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. (247Sports has its corporate address in Tennessee.) A three-judge panel of appeals court judges ruled 2–1 to uphold the district court ruling. The appeals court majority said:

The Video Privacy Protection Act—as the name suggests—arose out of a desire to protect personal privacy in the records of the rental, purchase, or delivery of “audio visual materials.” Spurred by the publication of Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history on the eve of his confirmation hearings, Congress imposed stiff penalties on any “video tape service provider” who discloses personal information that identifies one of their “consumers” as having requested specific “audio visual materials.”

This case is about what “goods or services” a person must rent, purchase, or subscribe to in order to qualify as a “consumer” under the Act. Is “goods or services” limited to audio-visual content—or does it extend to any and all products or services that a store could provide? Michael Salazar claims that his subscription to a 247Sports e-newsletter qualifies him as a “consumer.” But since he did not subscribe to “audio visual materials,” the district court held that he was not a “consumer” and dismissed the complaint. We agree and so AFFIRM.

2-2 circuit split

Salazar’s petition to the Supreme Court alleged that the 6th Circuit ruling “imposes a limitation that appears nowhere in the relevant statutory text.” The 6th Circuit analysis “flout[s] the ordinary meaning of ‘goods or services,’” and “ignores that the VPPA broadly prohibits a video tape service provider—like Paramount here—from knowingly disclosing ‘personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider,’” he told the Supreme Court.

The DC Circuit ruled the same way as the 6th Circuit in another case last year, but other appeals courts have ruled differently. The 7th Circuit held last year that “any purchase or subscription from a ‘video tape service provider’ satisfies the definition of ‘consumer,’ even if the thing purchased is clothing or the thing subscribed to is a newsletter.”

In Salazar v. National Basketball Association, which also involves Michael Salazar, the 2nd Circuit ruled in 2024 that Salazar was a consumer under the VPPA because the law’s “text, structure, and purpose compel the conclusion that that phrase is not limited to audiovisual ‘goods or services,’ and the NBA’s online newsletter falls within the plain meaning of that phrase.” The NBA petitioned the Supreme Court for review in hopes of overturning the 2nd Circuit ruling, but the petition to hear the case was denied in December.

Despite the NBA case being rejected by the high court, a circuit split can make a case ripe for Supreme Court review. “Put simply, the circuit courts have divided 2–2 over how to interpret the statutory phrase ‘goods or services from a video tape service provider,’” Salazar told the court. “As a result, there is a 2–2 circuit split concerning what it takes to become a ‘consumer’ under the VPPA.”

Paramount urged SCOTUS to reject case

While Salazar sued both Paramount and the NBA, he said the Paramount case “is a superior vehicle for resolving this exceptionally important question.” The case against the NBA is still under appeal on a different legal issue and “has had multiple amended pleadings since the lower courts decided the question, meaning the Court could not answer the question based on the now-operative allegations,” his petition said. By contrast, the Paramount case has a final judgment, no ongoing proceedings, and “can be reviewed on the same record the lower courts considered.”

Paramount urged the court to decline Salazar’s petition. Despite the circuit split on the “consumer” question, Paramount said that Salazar’s claims would fail in the 2nd and 7th circuits for different reasons. Paramount argued that “computer code shared in targeted advertising does not qualify as ‘personally identifiable information,’” and that “247Sports is not a ‘video tape service provider’ in the first place.”

“247Sports does not rent, sell, or offer subscriptions to video tapes. Nor does it stream movies or shows,” Paramount said. “Rather, it is a sports news website with articles, photos, and video clips—and all of the content at issue in this case is available for free to anybody on the Internet. That is a completely different business from renting video cassette tapes. The VPPA does not address it.”

Paramount further argued that Salazar’s case isn’t a good vehicle to consider the “consumer” definition because his “complaint fails for multiple additional reasons that could complicate further review.”

Paramount wasn’t able to convince the Supreme Court that the case isn’t worth taking up, however. SCOTUSblog says that “the case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in the court’s 2026-27 term,” which begins in October 2026.

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Supreme Court to decide how 1988 videotape privacy law applies to online video Read More »

Netflix to pay all cash for Warner Bros. to fend off Paramount hostile takeover

netflix, paramount, Policy, Warner Bros. / Tim Belzer / January 20, 2026

“By transitioning to all-cash consideration, we can now deliver the incredible value of our combination with Netflix at even greater levels of certainty, while providing our stockholders the opportunity to participate in management’s strategic plans to realize the value of Discovery Global’s iconic brands and global reach,” Warner Bros. Discovery board Chairman Samuel Di Piazza Jr. said in today’s press release.

Netflix is more likely to complete the deal, firms argue

Paramount also made an all-cash offer, but the Warner Bros. board called the Paramount bid “illusory” because it requires an “extraordinary amount of debt financing” and other terms that allegedly make it less likely to be completed than a Netflix merger.

Paramount “is a $14B market cap company with a ‘junk’ credit rating, negative free cash flows, significant fixed financial obligations, and a high degree of dependency on its linear business,” while Netflix has “market capitalization of approximately $400 billion, an investment grade balance sheet, an A/A3 credit rating and estimated free cash flow of more than $12 billion for 2026,” Warner Bros. told shareholders.

Warner Bros. and Netflix today continued to tout Netflix’s strong financial position and its ability to close the deal. “Netflix’s strong cash flow generation supports the revised all-cash transaction structure while preserving a healthy balance sheet and flexibility to capitalize on future strategic priorities,” the joint press release said.

The Wall Street Journal explained that the new “deal structure does away with a so-called collar, a mechanism meant to protect shareholders from large swings in an acquirer’s share price between the time when a deal is announced and when it closes. If Netflix shares dipped below $97.91, Warner shareholders were to get a larger portion of Netflix shares as part of the deal. If they rose above $119.67, shareholders would have received a smaller portion.”

Netflix to pay all cash for Warner Bros. to fend off Paramount hostile takeover Read More »

Paramount sues WBD over Netflix deal. WBD says Paramount’s price is still inadequate.

cable, merger, netflix, paramount, Policy, streaming, Tech, warner bros. discovery / Paul Patrick / January 12, 2026

Paramount Skydance escalated its hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) today by filing a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against WBD, declaring its intention to fight Netflix’s acquisition.

In December, WBD agreed to sell its streaming and movie businesses to Netflix for $82.7 billion. The deal would see WBD’s Global Networks division, comprised of WBD’s legacy cable networks, spun out into a separate company called Discovery Global. But in December, Paramount submitted a hostile takeover bid and amended its bid for WBD. Subsequently, the company has aggressively tried to convince WBD’s shareholders that its $108.4 billion offer for all of WBD is superior to the Netflix deal.

Today, Paramount CEO David Ellison wrote a letter to WBD shareholders informing them of Paramount’s lawsuit. The lawsuit requests the court to force WBD to disclose “how it valued the Global Networks stub equity, how it valued the overall Netflix transaction, how the purchase price reduction for debt works in the Netflix transaction, or even what the basis is for its ‘risk adjustment’” of Paramount’s $30 per share all-cash offer. Netflix’s offer equates to $27.72 per share, including $23.25 in cash and shares of Netflix common stock. Paramount hopes the information will encourage more WBD shareholders to tender their shares under Paramount’s offer by the January 21 deadline.

Before WBD announced the Netflix deal, Paramount publicly questioned the fairness of WBD’s bidding process. Paramount has since argued that its bid wasn’t given fair consideration or negotiation.

In his letter today, Ellison wrote:

We remain perplexed that WBD never responded to our December 4th offer, never attempted to clarify or negotiate any of the terms in that proposal, nor traded markups of contracts with us. Even as we read WBD’s own narrative of its process, we are struck that there were few actual board meetings in the period leading up to the decision to accept an inferior transaction with Netflix. And we are surprised by the lack of transparency on WBD’s part regarding basic financial matters. It just doesn’t add up – much like the math on how WBD continues to favor taking less than our $30 per share all-cash offer for its shareholders.

Additionally, Paramount plans to nominate board directors for election at WBD’s annual shareholder meeting who will fight against the Netflix deal’s approval. The window for nominations opens in three weeks, Ellison’s letter noted.

Paramount sues WBD over Netflix deal. WBD says Paramount’s price is still inadequate. Read More »

Warner Bros. sticks with Netflix merger, calls Paramount’s $108B bid “illusory”

netflix, paramount, Policy, warner bros. discovery / Tim Belzer / January 7, 2026

Larry Ellison pledged $40B, but “he didn’t raise the price,” Warner chair says.

Credit: Getty Images | Kenneth Cheung

The Warner Bros. Discovery board has unanimously voted to rebuff Paramount’s $108.4 billion offer and urged shareholders to reject the hostile takeover bid. The board is continuing to support Netflix’s pending $82.7 billion purchase of its streaming and movie studios businesses along with a separate spinoff of the Warner Bros. cable TV division.

Warner Bros. called the Paramount bid “illusory” in a presentation for shareholders today, saying the offer requires an “extraordinary amount of debt financing” and other terms that make it less likely to be completed than a Netflix merger. It would be the largest leveraged buyout ever, “with $87B of total pro forma gross debt,” and is “effectively a one-sided option for PSKY [Paramount Skydance] as the offer can be terminated or amended by PSKY at any time,” Warner Bros. said.

The Warner Bros. presentation touted Netflix’s financial strength while saying that Paramount “is a $14B market cap company with a ‘junk’ credit rating, negative free cash flows, significant fixed financial obligations, and a high degree of dependency on its linear business.” The Paramount “offer is illusory as it cannot be completed before it is currently scheduled to expire,” Warner Bros. said.

Warner Bros. said in a letter to shareholders today that it prefers Netflix with its “market capitalization of approximately $400 billion, an investment grade balance sheet, an A/A3 credit rating and estimated free cash flow of more than $12 billion for 2026.” Moreover, the deal with Netflix provides Warner Bros. with “more flexibility to operate in a normal course until closing,” the letter said.

Even if Paramount is able to complete a deal, “WBD stockholders will not receive cash for 12-18 months and you cannot trade your shares while shares are tendered,” the board told investors. Despite the seemingly firm position, Warner Bros. Discovery board Chairman Samuel Di Piazza Jr. seemed to suggest in an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box today that the board could be swayed by a higher offer.

Larry Ellison “didn’t raise the price”

On December 5, after a bidding war that also involved Paramount and Comcast, Warner Bros. struck a deal to sell Netflix its streaming and movie studios businesses. Netflix, already the world’s largest streaming service, would become an even bigger juggernaut if it completes the takeover including rival HBO Max, WB Studios, and other assets.

While the Paramount bid is higher, it would involve the purchase of more Warner Bros. assets than the deal with Netflix. “Unlike Netflix, Paramount is seeking to buy the company’s legacy television and cable assets such as CNN, TNT, and Discovery Channel,” the Financial Times wrote. “Netflix plans to acquire WBD after it spins off its cable TV business, which is scheduled to happen this year.”

Paramount, which recently completed an $8 billion merger with Skydance, submitted its bid for a hostile takeover days after the Netflix/Warner Bros. deal was announced. Warner Bros. resisted, and Paramount amended its offer on December 22 to address objections.

“Larry Ellison has agreed to provide an irrevocable personal guarantee of $40.4 billion of the equity financing for the offer and any damages claims against Paramount,” Paramount said. It also said it offered “improved flexibility to WBD on debt refinancing transactions, representations and interim operating covenants.”

Larry Ellison’s son, David Ellison, is the chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance. In his CNBC appearance, Di Piazza acknowledged that “Larry Ellison stepped up to the table and the board recognizes what he did.” But “ultimately, he didn’t raise the price. So, in our perspective, Netflix continues to be the superior offer, a clear path to closing.”

Warner Bros. shareholders currently have a January 21 deadline for tendering shares under the Paramount offer, but that could change, as Paramount has indicated it could sweeten the deal further.

Breakup fees a sticking point

Warner Bros. said in the letter to shareholders today that the latest offer still isn’t good enough. Paramount is “attempting an acquisition requiring $94.65 billion of debt and equity financing, nearly seven times its total market capitalization,” requiring it “to incur an extraordinary amount of incremental debt—more than $50 billion—through arrangements with multiple financing partners,” the letter said.

Warner Bros. said that breaking the deal with Netflix would require it to pay Netflix a $2.8 billion termination fee. Either Paramount or Netflix would have to pay Warner Bros. a $5.8 billion termination fee if the buyer can’t get regulatory approval for a merger. But if a Paramount deal failed, there would also be $4.7 billion in unreimbursed costs for shareholders, reducing the effective termination fee to $1.1 billion, according to Warner Bros.

“In the large majority of cases, when an overbidder comes in, they take that break[up] fee and pay it,” Di Piazza said on CNBC.

Warner Bros. Discovery also said the Paramount offer would prohibit it from completing its planned separation of Discovery Global and Warner Bros., which it argues will bring substantial benefits to shareholders by letting each of the separated entities “focus on its own strategic plan.” This separation can be completed even if Netflix is unable to complete the merger for regulatory reasons, it said.

We contacted Paramount and will update this article if it provides any response.

Warner Bros. investor wants more negotiations

Warner Bros. is facing pressure from one of its top shareholders to negotiate further with Paramount. “Pentwater Capital Management, a hedge-fund manager that is among Warner’s top shareholders, told the board in a letter Wednesday that it is failing in its fiduciary duty to shareholders by not engaging in discussions with Paramount,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

The hedge-fund manager said the board should at least ask Paramount what improvements it is willing to make to its offer. “Pentwater vowed to vote against the merger and not support the renomination of directors in the future if Paramount raises its offer and Warner’s board doesn’t have further discussions with the company,” the Journal wrote.

The Warner Bros. board argued in its letter that “PSKY has continued to submit offers that still include many of the deficiencies we previously repeatedly identified to PSKY, none of which are present in the Netflix merger agreement, all while asserting that its offers do not represent its ‘best and final’ proposal.”

However, Di Piazza suggested on CNBC that Paramount could still put a superior offer on the table. “They had that opportunity in the seventh proposal, the eighth proposal, and they haven’t done it,” he said. “And so from our perspective, they’ve got to put something on the table that is compelling and is superior.”

Netflix issued a statement today saying it “is engaging with competition authorities, including the US Department of Justice and European Commission,” to move the deal forward. “As previously disclosed, the transaction is expected to close in 12-18 months from the date that Netflix and WBD originally entered into their merger agreement,” Netflix said.

Warner Bros. sticks with Netflix merger, calls Paramount’s $108B bid “illusory” Read More »

Paramount tries to swipe Warner Bros. from Netflix with a hostile takeover

acquisition, HBO Max, paramount, streaming, Tech, warner bros. discovery / Rejus Almole / December 8, 2025

Although the US Department of Justice (DOJ) holds the power to block mergers that it deems to go against antitrust laws, Trump’s influence over the DOJ can’t be overlooked. While Paramount previously seemed to establish a good relationship with the president, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos may have done the same recently.

Sarandos “spoke with the president in the last couple of weeks in a confab that lasted about two hours,” The Hollywood Reporter reported on Sunday, citing “multiple” anonymous sources. A White House official told the publication that they can’t comment on “private meetings that may or may not have occurred,” and Netflix didn’t respond to the publication’s requests for comment.

Meanwhile, Trump’s relationship with the Ellisons and Paramount may have taken a turn recently. Today, the president lashed out at Paramount over an interview with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that aired on the news program 60 Minutes. As he said on Truth Social, per The Hollywood Reporter: “My real problem with the show, however, wasn’t the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air. THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE.”

Appealing to the movie theater industry

The movie theater industry is one of the biggest critics of Netflix’s WB acquisition due to fear that the streaming leader won’t release as many movies to theaters for as long and may drive down licensing fees. Paramount is leaning into this trepidation.

As one of the oldest film studios (Paramount was founded as Famous Players Film Company in 1912), Paramount has much deeper ties to the theater business. Ellison claimed that if Paramount and WBD merge, there will be “a greater number of movies in theaters.”

Sarandos said last week that Netflix plans to maintain WBD’s current theater release schedule, which reportedly goes through 2029.

In terms of streaming, Paramount’s announcement pointed to a “combination of Paramount+ and HBO Max,” lending credence to a November report that Paramount would fold HBO Max into its own flagship streaming service if it buys WBD.

With numerous industries, big names, billions of dollars, and politics all at play, the saga of the WBD split and/or merger is only just beginning.

This article was updated on December 8 at 2: 31 p.m. ET with comment from Sarandos.

Paramount tries to swipe Warner Bros. from Netflix with a hostile takeover Read More »

Higher prices, simpler streaming expected if HBO Max folds into Paramount+

HBO, HBO Max, mergers, paramount, paramount plus, streaming, Tech, warner bros. discovery / Tim Belzer / November 7, 2025

If a company acquires any form of HBO, one of its top challenges is expected to be streamlining operations while maintaining HBO’s premium brand. This could be especially difficult under a “more mainstream umbrella like Paramount+,” Alderman noted.

Streaming has already diluted the HBO brand somewhat. Through streaming, HBO is now associated with stuff from DC Comics and Cartoon Network, as well as reality shows, like 90 Day Fiancé and Naked and Afraid. Merging with Paramount+ or even Netflix could expand the HBO umbrella further.

That expanded umbrella could allow a company like Paramount to better compete against Netflix, something WBD executives have shied away from. HBO Max is “not everything for everyone in a household,” JB Perrette, WBD’s streaming president and CEO, said this spring.

“What people want from us in a world where they’ve got Netflix and Amazon [Prime Video] are those things that differentiate us,” Casey Bloys, chairman and CEO of HBO and Max content, told The Wall Street Journal in May.

A “stress test” for more streaming mergers

Aside from the impact on HBO Max subscribers, WBD’s merger talks have broad implications. A deal would open the door for much more consolidation in the streaming space, something that experts have been anticipating for some years and that addresses the boom of streaming services. Per Clark, discussions of a Paramount-WBD merger are “less about two studios joining forces and more about a stress test for future M&A.”

If WBD accepts a Paramount bid and that bid clears regulatory hurdles, it would signal that “premium content under fewer umbrellas is back in play,” Clark said.

A Paramount-WBD merger is likely to speed up consolidation among mid-tier players, like NBCUniversal, Lionsgate, and AMC, Alderman said, pointing to these companies’ interest in scaling their streaming businesses and in building differentiated portfolios to counter Netflix and Disney+’s expansive libraries.

If Paramount and WBD don’t merge, Clark expects to see more “piecemeal” strategies, such as rights-sharing, joint venture bundles, and streaming-as-a-service models.

Higher prices, simpler streaming expected if HBO Max folds into Paramount+ Read More »

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS

brendan carr, CBS, dei, Donald Trump, FCC, First Amendment, freedom of the press, paramount, Policy, sky dance / Kris Guyer / July 27, 2025

Warning that the “Paramount payout” and “reckless” acquisition approval together mark a “dark chapter” for US press freedom, Gomez suggested the FCC’s approval will embolden “those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage.”

FCC terms also govern Skydance hiring decisions

Gomez further criticized the FCC for overstepping its authority in “intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues” by requiring Skydance commitments to not establish any DEI programs, which Carr derided as “invidious.” But Gomez countered that “this agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity” by meddling in private companies’ employment decisions.

Ultimately, commissioner Olivia Trusty joined Carr in voting to stamp the agency’s approval, celebrating the deal as “lawful” and a “win” for American “jobs” and “storytelling.” Carr suggested the approval would bolster Paramount’s programming by injecting $1.5 billion into operations, which Trusty said would help Paramount “compete with dominant tech platforms.”

Gomez conceded that she was pleased that at least—unlike the Verizon/T-Mobile merger—Carr granted her request to hold a vote, rather than burying “the outcome of backroom negotiations” and “granting approval behind closed doors, under the cover of bureaucratic process.”

“The public has a right to know how Paramount’s capitulation evidences an erosion of our First Amendment protections,” Gomez said.

Outvoted 2–1, Gomez urged “companies, journalists, and citizens” to take up the fight and push back on the Trump administration, emphasizing that “unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America.”

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS Read More »

Paramount accused of bribery as it settles Trump lawsuit for $16 million

cbs 60 minutes, kamala harris interview, paramount, Policy, Trump / Paul Patrick / July 3, 2025

Payout to future presidential library

Paramount told us that the settlement terms were proposed by a mediator and that it will pay $16 million, including plaintiffs’ fees and costs. That amount, minus the fees and costs, will be allocated to Trump’s future presidential library, Paramount said. Trump’s complaint sought at least $20 billion in damages.

Paramount also said that “no amount will be paid directly or indirectly to President Trump or Rep. Jackson personally” and that the settlement will release Paramount from “all claims regarding any CBS reporting through the date of the settlement, including the Texas action and the threatened defamation action.”

Warren’s statement said the “settlement exposes a glaring need for rules to restrict donations to sitting presidents’ libraries,” and that she will “introduce new legislation to rein in corruption through presidential library donations. The Trump administration’s level of sheer corruption is appalling and Paramount should be ashamed of putting its profits over independent journalism.”

Trump previously obtained settlements from ABC, Meta, and X Corp.

Paramount said the settlement “does not include a statement of apology or regret.” It “agreed that in the future, 60 Minutes will release transcripts of interviews with eligible US presidential candidates after such interviews have aired, subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns.”

FCC’s news distortion investigation

Trump and Paramount previously told the court that they were in advanced settlement negotiations and are scheduled to file a joint status report on Thursday.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has been probing CBS over the Harris interview and holding up Paramount’s merger with Skydance. Carr revived a complaint that was previously dismissed by the FCC and which alleges that CBS intentionally distorted the news by airing two different answers given by Harris to the same question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Paramount accused of bribery as it settles Trump lawsuit for $16 million Read More »

Apple wouldn’t let Jon Stewart interview FTC Chair Lina Khan, TV host claims

AI, Apple, Apple TV, culture, ftc, jon stewart, lina khan, paramount, Policy, Tech, The Daily Show / Paul Patrick / April 2, 2024

The Problem with Jon Stewart —

Tech company also didn’t want a segment on Stewart’s show criticizing AI.

Samuel Axon – Apr 2, 2024 6: 28 pm UTC

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with FTC Chair Lina Khan. The conversation about Apple begins around 16: 30 in the video.

Before the cancellation of The Problem with Jon Stewart on Apple TV+, Apple forbade the inclusion of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan as a guest and steered the show away from confronting issues related to artificial intelligence, according to Jon Stewart.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of this rift between Apple and Stewart. When the Apple TV+ show was canceled last October, reports circulated that he told his staff that creative differences over guests and topics were a factor in the decision.

The New York Times reported that both China and AI were sticking points between Apple and Stewart. Stewart confirmed the broad strokes of that narrative in a CBS Morning Show interview after it was announced that he would return to The Daily Show.

“They decided that they felt that they didn’t want me to say things that might get me into trouble,” he explained.

Stewart’s comments during his interview with Khan yesterday were the first time he’s gotten more specific publicly.

“I’ve got to tell you, I wanted to have you on a podcast, and Apple asked us not to do it—to have you. They literally said, ‘Please don’t talk to her,'” Stewart said while interviewing Khan on the April 1, 2024, episode of The Daily Show.

Khan appeared on the show to explain and evangelize the FTC’s efforts to battle corporate monopolies both in and outside the tech industry in the US and to explain the challenges the organization faces.

She became the FTC chair in 2021 and has since garnered a reputation for an aggressive and critical stance against monopolistic tendencies or practices among Big Tech companies like Amazon and Meta.

Stewart also confirmed previous reports that AI was a sensitive topic for Apple. “They wouldn’t let us do that dumb thing we did in the first act on AI,” he said, referring to the desk monologue segment that preceded the Khan interview in the episode.

The segment on AI in the first act of the episode mocked various tech executives for their utopian framing of AI and interspersed those claims with acknowledgments from many of the same leaders that AI would replace many people’s jobs. (It did not mention Apple or its leadership, though.)

Stewart and The Daily Show‘s staff also included clips of current tech leaders suggesting that workers be retrained to work with or on AI when their current roles are disrupted by it. That was followed by a montage of US political leaders promising to retrain workers after various technological and economic disruptions over the years, with the implication that those retraining efforts were rarely as successful as promised.

The segment effectively lampooned some of the doublespeak about AI, though Stewart stopped short of venturing any solutions or alternatives to the current path, so it mostly just prompted outrage and laughs.

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s segment criticizing tech and political leaders on the topic of AI.

Apple currently uses AI-related technologies in its software, services, and devices, but so far it has not launched anything tapping into generative AI, which is the new frontier in AI that has attracted worry, optimism, and criticism from various parties.

However, the company is expected to roll out its first generative AI features as part of iOS 18, a new operating system update for iPhones. iOS 18 will likely be detailed during Apple’s annual developer conference in June and will reach users’ devices sometime in the fall.

Listing image by Paramount

Apple wouldn’t let Jon Stewart interview FTC Chair Lina Khan, TV host claims Read More »

Paramount ends Warner Bros. Discovery merger talks, continues mulling sell-off

max, paramount, streaming, Tech, warner bros. discovery / Paul Patrick / February 29, 2024

Max and Paramount+ staying separate —

Report: Paramount still contemplating selling to Skydance Media.

Scharon Harding – Feb 28, 2024 9: 14 pm UTC

Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Paramount Global are no longer considering a merger that would have put the Max and Paramount+ streaming services under one corporate umbrella. Per a CNBC report today citing anonymous “people familiar with the matter,” WBD and Paramount had been mulling a merger for “several months.”

In December, reports started swirling about WBD and Paramount discussing a potential merger. Axios even reported that WBD CEO David Zaslav and Paramount CEO Bob Bakish met in person for “several hours” and that Zaslav also met with Shari Redstone, the owner of National Amusements Inc. (NAI), Paramount’s parent company. Now, CNBC reports that discussions between the media giants “cooled off this month.” Paramount and WBD haven’t commented.

When news of the potential merger dropped, it was unclear what sort of regulatory hurdles the media conglomerates might have faced if they tried becoming one. Combined, the companies would have had the second-biggest streaming business by subscriber count, trailing Netflix.

Debt was also a huge concern. Paramount is $14.6 billion in debt, per its earnings report shared today. WBD was $40 billion in debt at the time of merger talks but said it was eyeing a profitable streaming business. WBD is still in debt currently but reported this month that its streaming business became profitable, making $103 million for the year. Max’s most recent subscriber count is 97.7 million compared to 67.5 million for Paramount+.

Merging with Paramount would have meant WBD added another company with struggling legacy media assets to its portfolio. It also would have meant buying a streaming service that has yet to turn a profit as of this writing. Paramount’s streaming business lost $1.66 billion in 2023, it reported today.

Merger still possible

Although things with WBD reportedly didn’t work out, Paramount is still seriously considering a merger. CNBC reported that the company formed a committee and hired a financial adviser focused on analyzing potential bids for all or parts of the company.

Suitors recently tied to Paramount include Byron Allen and, reportedly, Skydance Media. The David Ellison-owned company is “still performing due diligence on a potential transaction,” CNBC said today, citing two of its anonymous sources. In January, Bloomberg reported that Skydance made an all-cash offer for NAI.

Paramount could also try to bundle its services with another company’s, which could attract subscribers to Paramount+ and help Paramount save money. It has already considered bundling Paramount+ with Comcast’s Peacock through a partnership or joint venture, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported earlier this month. But Comcast doesn’t want to buy Paramount, per one of CNBC’s anonymous sources from today’s report.

Some streaming rivals to Paramount+ are already bundled together (such as Disney’s Disney+ and Hulu) and exploring joint ventures. As streaming services race to achieve the sort of profitability that Netflix has, big strategic moves, such as mergers, partnerships, and price hikes, are expected soon. Meanwhile, subscribers remain worried about potential fallout, which could result in monopolistic practices that limit consumer options.

This article was updated to include information from Paramount’s latest earnings report.

Paramount ends Warner Bros. Discovery merger talks, continues mulling sell-off Read More »

It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion

culture, max, netflix, paramount, paramount_, peacock, streaming, syndication / Paul Patrick / December 29, 2023

Not so great for consumers —

Disney, Warner, Comcast, and Paramount are contemplating cuts, possible mergers.

Anna Nicolaou and Christopher Grimes, Financial Times – Dec 28, 2023 3: 25 pm UTC

The world’s largest traditional entertainment companies face a reckoning in 2024 after losing more than $5 billion in the past year from the streaming services they built to compete with Netflix.

Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Comcast and Paramount—US entertainment conglomerates that have been growing ever larger for decades—are facing pressure to shrink or sell legacy businesses, scale back production and slash costs following billions in losses from their digital platforms.

Shari Redstone, Paramount’s billionaire controlling shareholder, has effectively put the company on the block in recent weeks. She has held talks about selling the Hollywood studio to Skydance, the production company behind Top Gun: Maverick, people familiar with the matter say.

Paramount chief executive Bob Bakish also discussed a possible combination over lunch with Warner CEO David Zaslav in mid-December. In both cases the discussions were said to be at an early stage and people familiar with the talks cautioned that a deal might not materialize.

Beyond their streaming losses, the traditional media groups are facing a weak advertising market, declining television revenues and higher production costs following the Hollywood strikes.

Rich Greenfield, an analyst at LightShed Partners, said Paramount’s deal discussions were a reflection of the “complete and utter panic” in the industry.

“TV advertising is falling far short, cord-cutting is continuing to accelerate, sports costs are going up and the movie business is not performing,” he said. “Everything is going wrong that can go wrong. The only thing [the companies] know how to do to survive is try to merge and cut costs.”

But as the traditional media owners struggle, Netflix, the tech group that pioneered the streaming model over a decade ago, has emerged as the winner of the battle to reshape video distribution.

“For much of the past four years, the entertainment industry spent money like drunken sailors to fight the first salvos of the streaming wars,” analyst Michael Nathanson wrote in November. “Now, we are finally starting to feel the hangover and the weight of the unpaid bar bill.”

For companies that have been trying to compete with Netflix, Nathanson added, “the shakeout has begun.”

After a bumpy 2022, Netflix has set itself apart from rivals—most notably by being profitable. Earnings for its most recent quarter soared past Wall Street’s expectations as it added 9 million new subscribers—the strongest rise since early 2020, when Covid-19 lockdowns led to a jump.

“Netflix has pulled away,” says John Martin, co-founder of Pugilist Capital and former chief executive of Turner Broadcasting. For its rivals, he said, the question is “how do you create a viable streaming service with a viable business model? Because they’re not working.”

The leading streaming services aggressively raised prices in 2023. Now, analysts, investors and executives predict that consolidation could be ahead next year as some of the smaller services combine or bow out of the streaming wars.

Warner, home to HBO and the Warner Bros movie studio, has made a small profit at its US streaming services this year, in part by raising prices, aggressively culling some series and licensing others to Netflix. However, this has come at a price: Warner lost more than 2 million streaming subscribers in its two most recent quarters.

The company, which merged with rival Discovery last year, has long been rumored as a potential takeover candidate, with Comcast seen as the most likely buyer. But Zaslav in November hinted that his group wanted to be an acquirer instead of a target.

“There are a lot of . . . excess players in the market. So, this will give us a chance not only to fight to grow in the next year, but to have the kind of balance sheet and the kind of stability . . . that we could be really opportunistic over the next 12 to 24 months,” he said on an earnings call.

The terms of the Warner-Discovery merger barred the group from dealmaking for two years. That period expires on April 8.

Disney, the largest traditional media company, is in the midst of a gutting restructuring that has featured 7,000 job cuts and attacks from activist investors. It lost more than $1.6 billion from its streaming businesses in the first nine months of 2023, during which its Disney+ service gained 8 million subscribers. The company says it will turn a profit in streaming in late 2024.

Bob Iger, Disney chief executive, this year openly pondered whether some of its assets still fit within the company, prompting speculation that he was considering disposals. But no deals emerged, leading some investors to conclude there is little appetite among private equity or tech companies for acquiring legacy businesses.

Paramount’s shares have risen almost 40 percent since early November as sale speculation mounted. The stock rose sharply after the Skydance talks were reported, but both Paramount and Warner shares fell after news of their discussions came to light.

Analysts said the two companies’ high debt levels were an immediate concern for investors. “We suspect investors will focus on pro forma leverage above all else,” Citi analysts wrote in a note last week. They estimated that an all-stock combination of Warner and Paramount could yield at least $1 billion of synergies.

But Greenfield said merging two companies with lossmaking streaming services and large portfolios of declining television assets was not the answer to their problems.

“The right answer should be, let’s stop trying to be in the streaming business,” he said. “The answer is, let’s get smaller and focused and stop trying to be a huge company. Let’s dramatically shrink.”

It’s “shakeout” time as losses of Netflix rivals top $5 billion Read More »

Debt-laden Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount consider merger

culture, max, movies, paramount, paramount plus, streaming, Tech, TV, warner bros. discovery / Rejus Almole / December 21, 2023

Game of Thrones — Enlarge / Media firms are looking for allies to help them take the coveted media throne.

The CEOs of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and Paramount Global discussed a potential merger on Tuesday, according to a report from Axios citing “multiple” anonymous sources. No formal talks are underway yet, according to The Wall Street Journal. But the discussions look like the start of consolidation discussions for the media industry during a tumultuous time of forced evolution.

On Wednesday, Axios reported that WBD head David Zaslav and Paramount head Bob Bakish met in Paramount’s New York City headquarters for “several hours.”

Zaslav and Shari Redstone, owner of Paramount’s parent company National Amusements Inc (NAI), have also spoken, Axios claimed.

One of the publication’s sources said a WBD acquisition of NAI, rather than only Paramount Global, is possible.

Talks to unite the likes of Paramount’s film studio, Paramount+ streaming service, and TV networks (including CBS, BET, Nickelodeon, and Showtime) with WBD’s Max streaming service, CNN, Cinemax, and DC Comics properties are reportedly just talks, but Axios said WBD “hired bankers to explore the deal.”

It’s worth noting that WBD will suffer a big tax hit if it engages in merger and acquisition activity before April 8 due to a tax formality related to Discovery’s merger with WarnerMedia (which formed Warner Bros. Discovery) in 2022.

A union of debts

Besides the reported talks being in very early stages, there are reasons to be skeptical about a WBD and Paramount merger. The biggest one? Debt.

The New York Times notes that WBD has $40 billion in debt and $5 billion in free cash flow. Paramount, meanwhile, has $15 billion in debt and a negative cash flow. Zaslav has grown infamous for slashing titles and even enacting layoffs to save costs. But WBD is eyeing greener pastures and declared Max as “getting slightly profitable” in October. Adding more debt to WBD’s plate could be viewed as a step backward.

Additionally, Paramount is even more connected to old, flailing forms of media than WBD, as noted by The Information, which pointed to two-thirds of Paramount’s revenue coming from traditional TV networks.

Antitrust concerns could also impact such a deal.

WBD stocks closed down 5.7 percent, and Paramount’s closed down 2 percent after Axios’ report broke.

Of course, these details about a potential merger may have been reported because WBD and/or Paramount want us to know about it so that they can gauge market reaction and/or entice other media companies to discuss potential deals.

Debt-laden Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount consider merger Read More »