The conflict between Paramount and Netflix has intensified. Paramount's Skydance unit sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice this week, accusing the streaming behemoth Netflix of launching a "panic-level scorched earth campaign" aimed at "poisoning" the views of regulators and stakeholders regarding Paramount's massive $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

In the June 5th letter, Paramount's Chief Legal Officer, Makan Delrahim, wrote that the ferocity of Netflix's response precisely demonstrates its fear of Paramount as a "formidable, scaled competitor." The letter alleges that Netflix is attempting to equate this deal with Disney's 2019 acquisition of 21st Century Fox, warning that large media mergers lead to reduced content output and diminished competition.

Paramount refuted this "sky is falling" narrative, emphasizing that the combined company would commit to releasing at least 30 theatrical films annually and increasing television production, which would in fact create more job opportunities for union workers.

In response to Paramount's accusations, a Netflix spokesperson called the claims "ridiculous," stating that Netflix had exited this acquisition process months ago and is currently focused on its own business.

This public dispute unfolds as Paramount's acquisition plan receives critical regulatory progress. This week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission approved the merger, concluding that while the deal eliminates competition between the two, the merged entity would still face constraints from other film studios. This decision comes with a 14-calendar-day waiting period, set to expire on June 23rd. Concurrently, New Zealand's Commerce Commission has indicated it does not intend to further review the merger.

Beyond the Australia-New Zealand market, Paramount has secured competition regulatory approvals from countries including Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and Serbia, as well as foreign direct investment clearances from nations like Germany, France, and Italy. However, the deal currently still faces review by the U.S. Department of Justice and potential antitrust litigation challenges from several U.S. state attorneys general.