Netflix’s $72 billion play for Warner Bros. is as much a bet on the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and chips as it is on movies and shows, according to a top Wall Street analyst, who said in an interview with Fortune the deal cannot be understood without looking at Google’s technology ambitions.
Amid cries from the jilted Ellison family about a “tainted” sale process and indie producers and theater owners of the “death of Hollywood,” Melissa Otto, Head of Research at S&P Global Visible Alpha, sees a different game being played. Otto said she thinks the tech angle of the industry is being overlooked.
“I think there’s this much bigger conversation that is being missed,” she said: Google and its TPU chips.
A key question for the future of entertainment, Otto told Fortune, is control over premium video at massive scale in an era when generative AI will increasingly create, remix, and personalize moving images. (Otto called it the “video corpus” that will train and power the next generation of AI models.) Over the long term, Otto added, that is a key part of the mystery behind why Netflix, long a builder rather than a buyer, would make Hollywood history by taking out one of its biggest rivals and one of the town’s prestige legacy studios.
Co-CEO Greg Peters was asked a blunt question about that same thing this morning on the call with analysts about the historic merger. Rich Greenfield of LightShed Partners cited Peters’ own previous statement at a Bloomberg conference about how there’s a long history of failed media mega-mergers, so he questioned: “Why is this going to end differently than every other media transaction essentially of this scale and history?”
Peters, while clarifying his remarks at the conference were a bit more nuanced, acknowledged “historically, many of these mergers haven’t worked, some have, but you really got to take a look at this on a case by case basis.” Still, Peters argued most previous big deals showed a lack of understanding about the underlying business, and Netflix understands these assets and has a “clear thesis about how the critical parts of Warner Brothers accelerate our progress.” He also acknowledged Netflix isn’t expert at doing large-scale M&A.
After all, this is expensive. “We are surprised that Netflix felt the need to spend $80bn+ and pay a premium for something Netflix disrupted,” Barclays analysts wrote in reaction to the deal, “and it is not clear what problem or opportunity Netflix is solving for that couldn’t have been achieved organically.”
In a statement emailed to Fortune, Dave Novosel, a Gimme Credit senior bond analyst, said the deal looks expensive to him as well, with Netflix assuming nearly $11 billion of debt.
“While the WBD assets bring an amazing amount of attractive content, NFLX is paying a steep EBITDA multiple of more than 25x, which seems extravagant,” Novosel wrote. Once it reaches the advertised synergies, he added, the resulting multiple of closer to 15x seems more reasonable. While those are pending, “the huge amount of debt that Netflix will need to raise to fund the deal will take leverage to well more than 4x initially.” Novosel wrote investors may need to be patient. Bloomberg’s credit team, meanwhile, reported the $59 billion bridge loan being taken out to finance this deal is among the biggest in corporate history.
Here’s what Otto sees happening in Northern California, far from Tinseltown, where the Warner deal is all anybody can talk about, and why Netflix took such a big swing.
Is the future of entertainment Northern or Southern California?
Part of Netflix’s thesis, according to Otto, is that it’s a tech company at heart and it recognizes Google’s rapid advancements in AI, particularly its advancements in TPU chips.
“What TPU chips do really, really well is in the modality of video in generative AI,” Otto said, as they essentially turn mathematical representations into moving pictures in much the same way GPUs revolutionized natural language AI by tokenizing and modeling text. Instead of ChatGPT and text, think Gemini 3 and YouTube videos.
Netflix already trails YouTube in total share of streaming time, with Bank of America Research recently citing Nielsen data showing YouTube held 28% of U.S. streaming, versus Netflix’s 18%. Otto said this threatens to go up another notch when and if Google’s TPU chips turbocharge content made with generative AI.
“I’m sure that it’s feeding into the strategy,” Otto said. “If I were Netflix and I knew that Google, one of their formidable competitors, had this chip technology and was essentially plowing billions and billions of dollars into developing the infrastructure so that they could carve out the corpus of the video modality in generative AI, I would want to build a moat around my business.”
On the surface, Netflix is buying a legacy studio with a deep library, beloved franchises, and a global brand—and paying up to do it. The combined streaming and studio business generates about $25 billion in revenue and roughly $4 billion to $5 billion in EBITDA, but margins on streaming remain thin, making the economics of the deal look tough in the near term. Executives have emphasized overlapping subscribers, obvious cost cuts and an expected $5.5 billion in efficiencies, the kind of “low‑hanging fruit” that can occupy management for the next 12 to 24 months, Otto said.
But in a world where TPUs can make high‑quality video “basically for free,” any player lacking both the chips and the content could find itself outgunned as AI reshapes how entertainment is produced and consumed. That makes Netflix’s big splash for Batman, Harry Potter, and the like a different kind of moat, and a different kind of game than the classic Hollywood rivalries of yore. Otto said it was plausible generative AI entertainment could be seen as an extension of the recent IP wars that saw Hollywood deluged by floods of superhero movies and sequels, with Disney’s Marvel Studios ushering in a computer generated revolution in the 21st century. “I think that’s not an outrageous assumption.”
By absorbing Warner Bros., Netflix increases the volume and diversity of content it can feed into recommendation systems, experimentation and, eventually, its own AI‑driven video tools. Otto also noted the deal potentially gives Netflix more exposure to advertising, an area in which Alphabet has dominated and where Warner Bros. still generates $6 billion–$7 billion in ad revenue. While the ultimate destination of that ad talent remains unclear, as they may go to the spinco that includes WBD’s cable assets such as CNN and TNT. (Netflix has only been active in ads since 2022, having been a premium subscription service since it pivoted from DVD rentals to streaming in the late 2000s.)
Imagine a world, Otto said, where you could create your own versions of the crime classic Columbo starring an AI-generated version of legendary actor Peter Falk, who died in 2011. (Columbo had several homes on TV on neither Warner Bros. nor Netflix, as it was first an NBC property in the 1970s, and then an ABC property from the late ’80s onward.) “In this day and age, boy, wouldn’t it be interesting?” Otto asked rhetorically.
In many ways, she added, this moment is remarkable because Netflix may end up neither a subscription nor an advertising business, but an AI-based one that doesn’t quite exist yet. “It’s kind of exciting because it means that it’s anybody’s game,” Otto said.
Otto also raised the spectre of TikTok, the social media giant partially under the control of Larry Ellison.
“They’re a formidable competitor as well,” she said. What’s likely, she added, is the future will be unpredictable. The rise of AI “could provide some really amazing innovation over the next couple of years.” She agreed it could create a bonanza for show business lawyers who wrangle over the rights of things like the likeness of Falk, which was a major issue in the recent Hollywood strikes.
“That may be the real story,” she said.
[Disclosure: The author worked internally at Netflix from June 2024 through July 2025.]
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.
With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.
“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.
The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.
CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.
Reversing recent guardrails
MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.
The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.
The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.
MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.
The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.
“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.
The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.
“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.
Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market.
The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.
That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.
“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”
By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump.
Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.
The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.
The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.
“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”
European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.
The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.
Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.
Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.
Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation.
“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.
Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.
The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.
Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.
Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.
Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.
AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.
The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.
The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives.
More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.
Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said.
The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.
“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”
To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.
The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.”
OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.”
Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.
Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.
Politics8 years ago