AI, Growth, and Delivery
The Netflix lawsuit gets one thing wrong right from the start: it’s fighting a market that no longer exists.
Most antitrust arguments assume Netflix competes with Max (HBO) and Disney+ (The Walt Disney Company). But Netflix doesn’t compete with streamers. It competes with time — YouTube, TikTok, gaming, and everything else that pulls attention off the screen.
And that’s where the lawsuit breaks.
The plaintiffs define the market as “U.S. SVOD,” as if we’re still in the cable era. They argue Netflix buying Warner Bros. Discovery would reduce choice, shrink innovation, and raise prices. That only makes sense if libraries and premium shows are the dominant moats. They aren’t.
Netflix’s real moat is the delivery system: global distribution, cost control, and operational discipline built over a decade. Libraries are engagement fuel, not unmatchable power. The Warner acquisition is defensive — stabilizing supply in a world where originals alone can’t carry growth.
The complaint also assumes content scarcity. But we’re living in an era of abundance. TikTok and YouTube generate infinite video by the minute. No one can “restrict output” anymore — not even if they tried.
And perhaps the strangest part: the class is made up of HBO Max subscribers claiming they’ll be harmed because Netflix will become too strong. That’s a long chain of causality to defend.
This case only works if Netflix is still a cable network. It isn’t.
https://lnkd.in/gyavthrQ