The news: Paramount bypassed Warner Bros. Discovery’s (WBD) board on Monday and took an acquisition offer directly to shareholders, launching a $30-per-share all-cash tender for the entire company. Paramount’s bid totals $108.4 billion, funded by parties including CEO David Ellison’s father Larry, Middle East sovereign wealth funds, and banks.

Netflix’s offer—valued at $72 billion plus debt—excludes WBD’s cable networks, which would spin off before closing. Ellison argued that buying WBD outright preserves the value of those networks and delivers $17.6 billion more cash than Netflix’s mix of cash and stock.

Ellison argued that Netflix’s ownership of HBO Max would merge the top and third-largest streamers, creating a dominant subscription platform with an estimated 43% global share. Paramount is also accusing WBD of running a narrow, Netflix-friendly process, per Variety; WBD’s legal team insists the board fulfilled its fiduciary duties.

How Paramount’s offer differs: Concerns over regulation, the box office, and mainstream news make the counter-offer unique.

• For one, it involves the president’s family. Paramount’s bid includes Affinity Partners, the investment firm owned by Jared Kushner, president Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Paramount pointed to this as proof its offer could face fewer regulatory hurdles than Netflix’s, particularly under a Trump administration historically aligned with the Ellisons.
• Paramount, meanwhile, pledges to revive theatrical releases with 30 exclusive films per year—warning that a Netflix-owned Warner Bros. would severely weaken the film ecosystem.
• If successful, Paramount says it would merge CBS News and CNN into a centrist “trust-first” news organization, a concept Ellison has already discussed with Trump.

Why it matters: The contest has moved beyond valuation, intertwining geopolitics, antitrust issues, the future of theaters, and the shape of global streaming. Netflix’s bid concentrates prestige content and subscription power, while Paramount’s offers a more balanced rival ecosystem and sidesteps the regulatory hurdles that could delay Netflix’s deal for years.

Who should marketers root for?

• Netflix’s deal concentrates quite a lot of power. Merging Netflix with HBO Max unites two of the most influential premium video platforms, limiting ad-supported supply and raising the risk of higher pricing and less measurement flexibility. Paramount-WBD could do the same, but to a far lesser extent; Paramount+ has less than half of Netflix’s US viewers, and that number expands when looking at global viewer data.
• A Paramount deal preserves greater competition. Integrating WBD into a diversified media company keeps more distributors, more ad-supported environments, and more negotiating leverage for buyers.
• Paramount is more ad-centric. In Q3, advertising made up roughly 22% of Paramount's total revenues, accounting for $1.5 billion out of $6.7 billion, whereas advertising represents less than 6% of Netflix’s 2025 revenues, per our forecast. Netflix’s ad business remains new and tightly controlled; Paramount’s infrastructure, broadcast reach, and long-standing ad relationships create a richer premium video marketplace.
• Theatrical impacts marketing. Paramount promises a robust theatrical slate that supports multi-window campaigns. Netflix’s shorter windows weaken those cycles.

For advertisers, a Paramount-led acquisition maintains a competitive premium-video market, expands ad opportunities, and is far more likely to close. Netflix’s deal compresses choice and increases concentration. Marketers should root for the bidder that preserves leverage and inventory—not the one that absorbs it.