Elizabeth Warren Asks DOJ to Investigate Disney Deal to Buy Fubo
Elizabeth Warren is asking the Department of Justice to investigate and potentially block Disney's surprise deal to buy the streaming service Fubo, arguing that it raises notable antitrust concerns.
The Democrat Senator wrote a letter on Feb. 19 to Omeed Assefi , acting DOJ assistant attorney general, asking the agency to look into the Jan. 6 deal that, if it closes, would have Disney merge its Hulu + Live TV business with rival Fubo to create a new holding company — of which Disney would own 70 percent — but keep Fubo CEO David Gandler at the helm.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Disney's Multibillion-Dollar Streaming Decisions May Be Unearthed in Court Battle Against Investors
Daria Cercek Exits Paramount to Head Disney Live Action Theatrical
'Win or Lose' Review: Pixar's Disney+ Series Should Have Been a Home Run
The merger ended Fubo's legal fight against Disney, Fox Corp. and Warner Bros. Discovery over the companies' now scrapped plan to create a Fubo rival titled Venu that would've been a streaming home for major league sports comprising rights deals pieced together from the three entertainment giants. Fubo had argued in a $1 billion lawsuit that Disney, Fox and Warners were trying to to exact an 'iron grip on sports content to extract billions of dollars in supra-competitive profits.'
Warren's letter argues that Disney looked to buy Fubo after facing legal roadblocks to creating its own joint venture sports service Venu. 'It is notable that, as recently as the beginning of January, Disney and Fubo were litigation adversaries, with Fubo citing a characterization of Disney as 'the final boss you must defeat after beating out all other media companies,'' Warren wrote. 'By acquiring Fubo, Disney's dominance would be even stronger.'
The now-scrapped sports streaming joint venture Venu, touted by Disney's Bob Iger, Fox's Lachlan Murdoch and Warner Bros. Discovery's David Zaslav, was initially unveiled in February last year with the aim to offer a package to consumers consisting of rights to the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, UFC, PGA TOUR Golf, Grand Slam Tennis, the FIFA World Cup and more.
Fubo sued days after the announcement and won a preliminary injunction from a federal judge last August to temporarily block the venture. When Disney unveiled its deal in January of this year to buy Fubo, it included the stipulation that Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery pay $220 million to Fubo.
In Iger's telling, however, Disney had realized that after it started to work on Venu's launch 'the emergence of these skinnier bundles surfaced, and Venu's basically looked redundant to us.' The deal to control Fubo, he told analysts on a Feb. 5 earnings call, 'was a great opportunity for us to make ESPN available in multiple skinny bundles and then to actually merge the Hulu Live and the Fubo, essentially channel business as one. Because frankly, while we liked being in that business, it wasn't a core business to Hulu.'
Venu, which would've cost $42.99 per month, was officially scrapped four days after Disney made its Fubo deal.
If the Hulu + Live and Fubo merger closes it would create a company with 6.2 million subscribers. Others in the pay TV space that it competes in include Charter (13 million subscribers), Comcast (12.8 million subscribers), DirecTV/AT&T (9.7 million) and YouTube TV (9 million), per estimates from research firm MoffettNathanson.
Warren views the deal as an attempt by Disney to effectively corner the streaming sports marketplace. 'This proposed acquisition raises significant concerns under antitrust law, would give Disney increased market power and incentives to increase costs for viewers, and should be regarded as another data point in Disney's history of anticompetitive behavior,' the Senator's letter reads. 'I urge DOJ not to be fooled by Disney's attempt to purchase its way around antitrust law, and to closely scrutinize this proposed acquisition.'
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started
Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023
Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Disney to Pay Comcast $439 Million More for Its Hulu Stake
Walt Disney Co. must pay $438.7 million more to Comcast Corp. to complete its purchase of the Hulu streaming service, according to an appraisal process conducted by investment bankers. The transaction will close before July 24, Disney said in a regulatory filing Monday.
San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Newsom blasts Trump's arrest threat as ‘unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'
President Donald Trump on Monday endorsed the idea of arresting California Gov. Gavin Newsom over the state's resistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, intensifying a clash that has already drawn legal challenges and fierce rebukes from Democratic leaders. 'I would do it if I were Tom,' Trump said, referring to Tom Homan, his border czar, who over the weekend suggested that state and local officials, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, could face arrest if they interfered with immigration raids. 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. Trump's remarks signal a sharp escalation in the administration's crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions and a willingness to target political opponents in unprecedented ways. Newsom responded swiftly, calling Trump's words a chilling attack on American democratic norms. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor,' Newsom wrote on X. 'This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' Tensions escalated sharply after Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles following days of civil unrest related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The deployment marked the first time a president has federalized a state's National Guard without the governor's consent since 1965. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced plans to sue Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging the deployment was unlawful. 'Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law,' Bonta said at a press conference. 'There is no invasion. There is no rebellion.' Meanwhile, David Huerta, president of SEIU California, was charged with felony conspiracy to impede an officer after his arrest during the L.A. protests. Despite the furor, legal experts note that Homan lacks the authority to arrest elected officials, and his role remains advisory. Still, Trump's rhetoric has raised alarms among critics who view his comments as part of a broader pattern of undermining democratic institutions. 'This is a preview of things to come,' Newsom warned in an interview with Brian Taylor Cohen that he shared on social media. 'This isn't about L.A., per se,' the Democratic governor added. 'It's about us today, it's about you, everyone watching tomorrow. This guy is unhinged. Trump is unhinged right now, and this is just another proof point of that.' At a news conference held by lawmakers in Sacramento to discuss the protests in Los Angeles, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said Trump's threat to arrest Newsom is a 'direct assault on democracy and an insult to every Californian.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare—and controversial—exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Read More: Gavin Newsom Says Trump 'Manufactured' Crisis in California, Announces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Order Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.' Contact us at letters@
