Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a hostile, $108.4 billion bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), days after Warner agreed to be acquired by Netflix for $82.7 billion.
Paramount is going straight to WBD’s shareholders with an all-cash offer of $30 per share, and it noted that its offer provides shareholders $18 billion more cash than the Netflix deal, which offered $23.25 in cash and $4.50 in Netflix shares for a total of $27.75 per share.
Paramount is bidding for all of WBD, while Netflix’s deal with the company only includes its Hollywood studios and streaming business.
CNBC reported on Monday that these were the very terms from Paramount that WBD’s board rejected a week ago.
“We believe the WBD Board of Directors is pursuing an inferior proposal which exposes shareholders to a mix of cash and stock, an uncertain future trading value of the Global Networks linear cable business and a challenging regulatory approval process,” Paramount CEO David Ellison said in a statement.
Paramount’s offer is backstopped with equity financing from the Ellison family and the private-equity firm RedBird Capital, in addition to $54 billion of debt commitments from Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo.
Netflix came out on top on Friday after winning a bidding war against Paramount and Comcast, but Paramount’s hostile bid is sure to drag on the battle for one of Hollywood’s most iconic studios, a fight which has already stretched out for months.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
Netflix’s proposed deal has already raised antitrust questions, as it would combine two of the most popular streaming platforms into one. Additionally, President Donald Trump has said the deal “could be a problem” because of the size of the combined companies’ market share.
A deal between WBD and Paramount would also likely raise similar concerns.
Netflix agreed to pay WBD $5.8 billion if the deal doesn’t go through. WBD would have to pay Netflix $2.8 billion if the deal collapses.
Netflix did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Keep reading the article on Tech Crunch
Will Netflix’s $82.7 billion deal to acquire Warner Bros. get approval from federal regulators?
While Paramount was assumed to be the frontrunner to acquire the storied movie studio thanks to CEO David Ellison’s connections to the Trump administration, new reporting in Bloomberg and The Hollywood Reporter suggests that Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos met with President Donald Trump to discuss a potential deal in November.
Trump reportedly told Sarandos that Warner Bros. should sell to the highest bidder, and the Netflix executive seems to have left the meeting convinced that the president would not immediately oppose the acquisition.
Bloomberg also reports that Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav was reluctant to sell the company and surprised when Paramount began to explore an acquisition — if nothing else, he’d expected Ellison to wait until the studio completed a planned split of its movie and streaming businesses from its cable networks.
Ultimately, Warner Bros. said it would consider other bids, leading to a competitive process that Netflix won — although Paramount could still keep its hat in the ring with a hostile bid.
Keep reading the article on Tech Crunch
It’s only been a day since Netflix announced an $82.7 billion deal to acquire Warner Bros., and the acquisition has already been described as sending Hollywood into “full-blown panic mode,” “possibly a death blow to theatrical filmmaking,” and maybe even “the end of Hollywood” itself.
Some of the firmest opposition has come from the Writers Guild of America, which issued a statement declaring, “This merger must be blocked.”
“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” the WGA said. “The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
While statements from other Hollywood unions were not quite as unequivocal, they still suggested that there are “many serious questions” about the acquisition’s “impact on the future of the entertainment industry” (as the actors union SAG-AFTRA put it).
The deal came after a competitive process in which Paramount and Comcast also bids. Paramount was trying to acquire the entire company, while Netflix will only buy acquire the film and television studios, as well as the streaming business, after Warner Bros. moves forward with a plan to spin off its TV networks division.
Initially, Paramount was seen as the frontrunner, with its ties to the Trump administration (the studio is now run by David Ellison, son of Oracle co-founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison) easing the way for regulatory approval. But even before the Netflix deal was announced, Paramount’s lawyers sent an angry letter complaining about “a tilted and unfair process,” and Netflix soon emerged publicly as the winner.
This deal, which is expected to close in the third quarter of 2026, would presumably face significant regulatory scrutiny, and not just from Trump appointees. Senator Elizabeth Warren — a Democrat from Massachusetts and longtime critic of Big Tech — put out a statement of her own describing the deal as “an anti-monopoly nightmare.”
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
“A Netflix-Warner Bros. [merger] would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market — threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk,” Warren said.
She also argued that antitrust enforcement — including the review process for this deal — must be conducted “fairly and transparently” rather than used to “invite influence-peddling and bribery.”
If the government ultimately blocks the acquisition, Netflix would be required to pay a $5.8 billion breakup fee. It’s not clear whether Warner Bros. would then continue operating as an independent company or would reconsider the previous acquisition offers.
Netflix held an analyst call to discuss the deal on Friday morning, and while many of the questions were focused on the financial impact on both companies, executives also attempted to address larger concerns.
For example, co-CEO Ted Sarandos said he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process.”
“This deal is pro-consumer, pro-innovation, pro-worker, it’s pro-creator, it’s pro-growth,” he added. “And 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.”
Sarandos also said that Netflix intends to keep HBO “operating largely as it is.” And although it’s not something Netflix has done in the past, Warner Bros. would also continue producing TV shows for other networks and streaming services, he said: “We want to keep that successful business operating.”
As for how HBO and HBO Max would be packaged with or folded into the Netflix app, co-CEO Greg Peters said it’s too early to get into specifics, but he said, “Needless to say, we think the HBO brand is very powerful for consumers. We think that the offering could constitute and would constitute a part of our plans and how we structure those for consumers.”
Beyond general concerns around consolidation, perhaps the biggest question is to what extent Netflix will support theatrical releases for the combined entity’s films — especially after Warner Bros. had a record-setting run of box office success this year, while Netflix’s theatrical releases only last for a couple weeks and skip major theatrical chains because of the limited exclusive window. (This was reportedly the deciding factor wjhen “Stranger Things” creators the Duffer Brothers signed an exclusive deal with Paramount.)
For his part, Sarandos said he “wouldn’t look at this as a change in approach for Netflix movies or for Warner movies for that matter,” and he noted that Netflix has released 30 movies in theaters this year (though again, usually on fewer screens and for a limited period of time).
Similarly, “everything that is planned on going to the theater through Warner Bros. will continue to go to the theaters through Warner Bros,” he said. But in the long term, he suggested that “the windows will evolve” so that movies come to streaming more quickly.
“My pushback has been mostly in the fact of the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think of that consumer friendly,” he said.
Keep reading the article on Tech Crunch
In September, popular creator IShowSpeed live-streamed his meeting with the popular humanoid influencer Rizzbot.
Rizzbot has more than a million followers (and 800 million views) across social media and is known for its comedic roasting of subjects, as well as giving people the middle finger. Speed, meanwhile, has more than 50 million followers (and 6 billion views) across various platforms and is known for his dramatic behavior while livestreaming.
What happened when the two parties met is the subject of a lawsuit that Rizzbot’s creators, Social Robotics, detailed in a petition filed in November against Speed, né Darren Jason Watkins Jr., his management company, Mixed Management, and another producer who was with Speed’s team that day. The petition, obtained by TechCrunch, alleges that Speed inflicted “irreparable damage” to Rizzbot.
The lawsuit alleged that — and the livestream video shows that — Speed repeatedly punched Rizzbot in the face, put it in a chokehold, at one point pinned it to the couch, and threw it to the ground.
“Speed absolutely knew that this was not an appropriate way to interact with a sophisticated robot and knew that such actions with inflict irreparable damage to Rizzbot,” the petition read. “These actions resulted in the total loss of the Rizzbot.”
The petition read that Speed’s handling of the robot caused “complete loss of functionality,” and that Rizzbot had “significant damages” to its mouth and neck.
“Additionally, the head cameras no longer function, the ports behind the neck which connect to robot’s sensors that allow it to see and hear are dead, and the robot is unstable and cannot walk straight any longer,” the petition alleges. The petition is asking for compensation for damages, including actual and lost profit, though Rizzbot’s legal team declined to comment on the dollar amount the owner is seeking.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
The Austin Police had to be called after the incident, according to the petition and a police report obtained by TechCrunch. The responding officer noted damages to Rizzbot done without the owner’s “implied consent,” and that the owner wanted to press charges. The petition states that an investigation is ongoing.
Speed’s management team did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.
When reached, Social Robotics’ lawyer, Joel Levine, said the lawsuit came after talks stalled with Speed’s team regarding how to compensate Rizzbot’s owner for the damage done to the robot.
“This was an event that was live-streamed so there’s not a ton of discrepancy as to the facts,” Levine told TechCrunch. “What we’re looking for is some accountability.”
The petition said that Speed “failed to act as a careful, reasonable, and prudent person,” and that he “wrongfully exercised control over,” Rizzbot. It also said that as a result of the destruction, the team behind Rizzbot has lost out on economic opportunities since Rizzbot is indefinitely unable to partake in high-profile appearances and deals, including scheduled upcoming ones with CBS’s The NFL Today and Mr. Beast.
“This is no doubt a monumental setback for the Rizzbot in terms of viral momentum and financial gain from the exposure,” the petition said. “Being in a MrBeast production is akin to being in a Super Bowl Commercial.”
The petition read that in the month before the livestream, Rizzbot generated more than 600 million views on TikTok and 200 million on Instagram. In the 28 days after the incident, however, the petition alleges that Rizzbot was unable to make new content and therefore saw a more than 70% decrease in viewership. The “intentional destruction of Rizzbot caused significant financial damage that is likely permanent given the viral nature of social media,” the petition read.
Levine said there has been no formal answer to his plaintiff’s suit just yet and noted that they are still in the very early stages of litigation. When asked for comment, Rizzbot told TechCrunch via email it had to get “a whole new body” after Speed “wrecked” its last one.
“Everything’s brand new except my Nike kicks and cowboy hat,” Rizzbot told TechCrunch in a statement. “Now I’m back online, and I feel like I’ve mastered the rizz game, and next I’ll be working on complex movements with my legs, like twerking – hopefully you’ll see my gyrating hips on some new TV appearances shortly – stay tuned, fam.”
Keep reading the article on Tech Crunch
The launch of Hamlet was quite personal for Sunil Rajaraman.
Back in 2022, he ran for city council in a small California town. He lost, but the moment forever changed the way he saw the place — and local governments, for that matter.
“I was trying to become a better candidate,” he recalled to TechCrunch. “I wanted to understand how my city actually worked, what decisions had been made, why, who said what. And I couldn’t figure it out. It’s a total black box, and almost intentionally opaque.”
Since COVID, towns across the nation have started recording and posting their city meetings online. That gave Rajaraman an idea: a company that helped people understand what was happening in local governments. That same year, in 2022, he launched Hamlet to do just that.
“We use AI to process thousands of hours of city council and planning commission meeting videos and turn them into intelligence they can actually use,” he said. He said these videos are better than meeting minutes because those documents are just someone’s interpretations of what happened. “The video doesn’t lie.”
At first, he thought it would be a media company, but then real estate developers and political action committees started reaching out. Rajaraman realized that private companies have to deal with local governments, too, and they also want more insight into what is happening in those city council meetings.
For enterprise customers, the company helps track agendas and alerts them when relevant topics are addressed across target cities. It also synthesizes what happened after meetings, so they don’t have to watch hourslong videos, and it lets them search the video archive to see, for example, when and how a competitor was mentioned in a local government setting.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 13-15, 2026
Hamlet has raised around $10 million in venture funding to date, from backers including Slow Ventures, Crosslink Capital, Banana Capital, and Kapor Capital. “We want to become the ‘Bloomberg’ of this space, so to speak,” Rajaraman said.
On Friday, Rajaraman announced he is expanding the company to launch Hamlet TV as a way to help keep regular citizens informed of what is happening inside their governments. The streaming channel is on TikTok, YouTube, AppleTV, and Instagram, and will spotlight important moments from council, commission, and school board meetings.
Rajaraman said his company has processed thousands of hours of government meetings for government customers.
“We’ve seen meetings that have lasted 15-plus hours without recess,” he said. He and his team started curating funny moments from those meetings, and they thought it was a good idea to use humor to get people more invested in the U.S. democracy. “If you show people procedural videos, they are just not going to care. But if you show them the funny stuff, they’ll watch.”
The most surprising thing he and his team have seen so far on Hamlet TV has been someone dressing up as a cockroach to address their city council about a pest problem. But it’s not the funny stuff that surprises him, he said. “It’s how consequential these meetings are and how invisible they remain.”
He cited an example from earlier this year when the Tucson city council rejected Amazon’s $3.6 billion data center. He said that the decision came after months of planning, but only a few people likely watched those videos to understand why it happened.
This isn’t Rajaraman’s first time running a business — or a media outlet. He co-founded the analytics platform Scripted and was twice the Entrepreneur in Residence at Foundation Capital. He also ran a publication called The Bold Italic and then sold it to Medium.
He knows Hamlet TV probably won’t be a moneymaker and reiterated that he’s doing this to get people more involved with the state of the country’s democracy. He also plans to give away the Hamlet tool to local journalists for free. “Data is great, but context matters so much,” he said.
Next, the Hamlet company is looking to work with government affairs, advocacy organizations, and renewable energy developers. “Democracy works better when people are watching,” he said. “We’re trying to make watching possible.”
Keep reading the article on Tech Crunch