Artist: Tyson Moultrie
By: Willem Steiner
“The Times They Are A-Changin” – Bob Dylan
Across the media landscape, companies are merging and exerting force on antitrust laws and those that seek to enforce them. In the past four months, the landscape of both the entertainment and media industries has changed significantly. The once outrageous thought of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery merging is a reality and now Live Nation, the online ticketing giant, is fighting back against claims of anti-competitive behavior. All of this begs the question: how are laws around antitrust and media specifically equipped to encourage free market enterprise by protecting consumers?
In United States v. Paramount Pictures,[1] the Supreme Court found that seven major studios had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.[2] This was one of the first entertainment related cases where anti-competition was at the forefront.[3] The studios had been employing a vertical integration model where they would effectively own the entire lifespan of their films – from distribution and movie theaters to contracting with actors who would exclusively be in their movies.[4] The end result was that these studios were forced to sell off the movie theaters.[5] Fast-forward to 2026, Live Nation finds themselves in the cross-hairs of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) but, unlike in Paramount, questions remain on whether any enforcement action will be taken.[6] The DOJ originally pursued charges against the company because they allegedly raised barriers to entry for competitors while also forcing consumers to rely on old technology.[7] In addition to this, Live Nation also employed a “flywheel” which the DOJ described as a “self-reinforcing business model.”[8] The fees and revenue from concerts and sponsorships go to the company which then use those profits to enter exclusive deals with artists for promotion.[9] Lastly, Live Nation utilizes its expansive catalogue of live content to sign venues into lengthy ticketing deals.[10]
This comes in response to Gail Slater, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s antitrust division, recently stepping down which further calls into question on whether Live Nation will be forced to divest of assets.[11] Conversely, deals involving all types of media companies like EA, Charter Communications, and Netflix have occurred in the later part of 2025.[12] The common denominator between the Live Nation potential dissolution and the aforementioned EA, Charter communications, and Netflix acquisition is that they are all brushing elbows with the federal government.[13] The Trump administration would need to approve these mergers that involve family members and those that are aligned with the President.[14]
This is not to say that all of the deals are going to be automatically green lit because of who the respective parties are, however, this administration has shown a reluctance to regulate competition amid an aggressive “America First” campaign.[15] This is exemplified in the Nexstar and Tegna deal where the result will be a media company that owns “or operate[s] 265 full-power television stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia…” which is over the 39% cap that Congress set to limit news station deals like this one.[16] However, the National Association of Broadcasters recently argued against such 39% cap on ownership postulating that it undermines local journalism and is therefore underinclusive because it does not apply to major streamers.[17] This is important to recognize that to some, massive local ownership is anti-competitive, whereas to others its survival.[18]
Anti-trust has been described as a property rights doctrine, which is interesting way to think about a law that was originally intended to limit oil and railroad companies in the late 19th century.[19] This law seeks to preserve free market capitalism instead of it devolving into a few players controlling the board game.[20] Media mergers in the past, such as the AT&T acquisition of Time Warner, did not protect consumers nor increase competition, it actually led to layoffs and massive shareholder value loss.[21] This deal in particular was supposed to protect consumers, but in reality it did the opposite and now other groups are taking up fight against such transactions.[22] When the law was failing to provide any clarity or hope for customers, the Writers Guild of America West (“WGA”) took it upon themselves to advocate for citizens.[23] The WGA argued that the five largest media deals in the 21st century were not only bad for business, but increasingly led to less consumer choice including less diversity of content and even fewer streaming choices.[24]
However, M&A is viewed in a different light depending on who is charge, for example Lina Khan “stretch[ed]” antitrust laws further than they needed to be just to stop a company being too large.[25] On the hand, the current head of the DOJ’s antitrust division is relatively unknown after Gail Slater stepped down.[26] What this essentially means is that states might have to pick up the slack and act as the first barrier of defense and recently, California adopted the Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Regime.[27] Adopting this uniform act will allow California’s attorney general to receive notification of an impending merger and allow them time to take on a greater role before the ink is dry.[28] In addition to this, California may also become more involved in the investigation process with the federal government pre-merger and by doing so, give them more avenues to fight anti-competitive behavior from companies.[29]
In the wake of limited federal guidance or enforcement it is up to consumers, unions like the WGA, and watch dogs to voice their opinions on how they feel about companies merging. Generally, the results have not been in the best interest of citizens as shown in the AT&T and Time Warner deal where prices were raised. The same could be said for the Live Nation and Ticketmaster merger as the concert experience has been disrupted by the exorbitant price of tickets. Furthermore, on February 27, 2026, Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders agreed to Paramount’s offer to purchase the company valued at north of $100 billion. The deal will likely take months to finalize, but it would not be surprising to see the entertainment job market negatively impacted by two major competitors merging.
However, this is not the case with other M&A activity occurring within media where some of these deals have worked in the favor of customers by lowering prices and allowing for greater access to content. Although the federal government has a strong say in the matter and should act as a backstop to mergers that will ultimately affect consumers, states should take a larger role in policing instead of solely relying on the DOJ. By doing so, states can tailor laws and work closer with people on the ground like unions and business professionals that are more likely to be impacted and have a stake in the transaction. These laws may include industry -specific rules that seek to amplify, not suppress, free market capitalism.
Student Biography:
My name is Willem Steiner, and I am second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School where I am an editor for Suffolk Law’s Sports & Entertainment Law Association Blog. Outside of school, I love snowboarding, going to the beach, and watching movies.
Contact me at:
willem.steiner@su.suffolk.edu
Disclaimer:
The Suffolk Law Sports & Entertainment Law Association Blog is a student-run publication intended to encourage discussion, analysis, and enjoyment of issues related to sports and entertainment law. The content published on the Blog is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Suffolk University Law School, the Sports & Entertainment Law Association, or any affiliated faculty, staff, or students. Nothing on this Blog should be construed as creating an attorney–client relationship.
[1] 334 U.S. 131 (1948).
[2] See U.S. Supreme Court decides Paramount antitrust case, history.com, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/may-3/u-s-supreme-court-decides-paramount-antitrust-case (last visited Feb. 16, 2026). See also Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] See U.S. Supreme Court decides Paramount antitrust case, supra note 1.
[6] See Winston Cho & Ethan Millman, Live Nation Break Up Is Less Likely After DOJ Overhaul. What Would A Deal Look Like?, hollywood rep., https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/music/music-industry-news/live-nation-doj-lawsuit-after-gail-slater-resignation-1236504011/ (last visited Feb. 16, 2026).
[7] See generally, Press Release, Justice Department Sues Live Nation-Ticketmaster for Monopolizing Markets Across the Live Concert Industry, dept. of just. (May, 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. (explaining the “fly wheel” concept in further detail).
[11] See Cho & Millman, supra note 6.
[12] See Jill Goldsmith, Media Spin Cycle: The M&A Outlook In 2026, deadline, https://deadline.com/2025/12/2026-mergers-acquisitions-media-outlook-1236655942/ (last visited Feb. 16, 2026).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] See Cho & Millman, supra note 6.
[16] See Timothy Karr, Trump and Carr See a Propaganda Boost in Getting the Shady Nexstar Deal Done, Free Press, https://www.freepress.net/blog/trump-and-carr-see-propaganda-boost-nexstar-tegna deal#:~:text=February%209%2C%202026,to%20FCC%20Chairman%20Brendan%20Carr. (last visited Feb. 18, 2026).
[17] See Grace Whaley, NAB’s Curtis LeGeyt to Congress: The Broadcast Ownership Cap Hurts Local News, Nat’l Ass’n of broadcasters, https://www.blog.nab.org/2026/02/11/nabs-curtis-legeyt-to-congress-the-broadcast-ownership-cap-hurts-local-news/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2026).
[18] Id. (explaining how the cap is actually stifling growth for these networks). See also Karr, supra note 16 (arguing the downsides of local ownership).
[19] See Sean Reyes, Antitrust Enforcement Stops Gatekeeping Amid Media Consolidation, Bloomberg L., https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/antitrust-enforcement-stops-gatekeeping-amid-media-consolidation (last visited Feb. 18, 2026).
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id. See also Broken Promises: Media Mega-Mergers and the case for Antitrust Reform, writers guild of amer. west, https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/news_and_events/public_policy/broken-promises-merger-report.pdf (last visited Feb. 18, 2026).
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] See Reyes, supra note 19.
[26] See Cho & Millman, supra note 6.
[27] See California Adopts Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Regime, latham & watkins, https://www.lw.com/en/insights/california-adopts-uniform-antitrust-premerger-notification-regime (Feb. 18, 2026)
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
Leave a Reply