The Department of Justice has approved Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, clearing one of the biggest regulatory obstacles to a deal that would reshape the entertainment industry.
According to reports from <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/12/paramount-acquisition-warner-bros-approved-00960300?_sp_pass_consent=true">Politico</a> and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/12/paramount-wbd-merger-approval-doj.html">CNBC</a>, the DOJ&#8217;s Antitrust Division concluded the transaction does not pose a threat to competition and declined to challenge the merger.
The decision paves the way for Paramount to merge with the media giant behind CNN, HBO Max, Warner Bros. Pictures, TBS, TNT, and other major entertainment brands, creating one of the world&#8217;s largest media companies.
The approval is expected to be formally announced on Friday.
Federal regulators reportedly approved the deal without requiring Paramount to divest any assets or accept behavioral remedies, conditions that often accompany major media mergers.
The merger has been among the most closely watched antitrust reviews of President Donald Trump&#8217;s second term because of its size and its potential impact on the media landscape.
Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison, son of Oracle founder and Trump ally Larry Ellison, reportedly met personally with DOJ officials multiple times during the review process. According to Politico, Ellison spent roughly two hours meeting with Antitrust Division officials and career attorneys several weeks ago to discuss the transaction and its competitive effects.
Throughout the review, Paramount argued that the merger would strengthen competition by creating a larger media company capable of competing against streaming giants and technology firms that increasingly dominate the entertainment business.
Earlier this year, Netflix briefly pursued its own acquisition proposal for Warner Bros. Discovery before dropping out of the bidding process. According to CNBC, Paramount&#8217;s offer values Warner Bros. Discovery at approximately $31 per share.
Despite the federal approval, the deal still faces additional scrutiny.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, continues to investigate the transaction and could attempt to challenge the merger in court. Attorneys general from several states, including California and New York, monitored portions of the federal review process.
&#8220;The Paramount acquisition of Warner Brothers remains an active investigation,&#8221; a spokesperson for Bonta&#8217;s office told Politico.
The merger must also receive approval from European regulators before it can be finalized. The European Union has opened its own review and set a July deadline for its initial assessment.
On Wednesday, Paramount announced that Australia&#8217;s competition regulator had <a href="https://deadline.com/2026/06/paramount-wbd-mergerl-clears-australia-1236952390/">approved the transaction</a>.
Critics of the merger have warned that it could lead to another round of consolidation-related layoffs across Hollywood. Industry unions and some entertainment advocates have argued that the combined company would likely pursue significant cost-cutting measures.
For Paramount and the Ellisons, the DOJ&#8217;s decision represents a major victory after months of regulatory scrutiny. The company has said it expects the transaction to close by September if all remaining approvals are secured.

In this photo illustration, the Paramount logo is seen

Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger Clears Major Hurdle

Anti-trust

Antitrust

Business

Economy

Entertainment

Hollywood

justice department

Paramount

Warner Bros

Warner Brothers

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars.
In this piece, Manhattan Institute legal policy fellow Jarrett Dieterle identifies a root cause of Spirit Airlines&#8217; recent collapse: American antitrust policy. According to Dieterle, the Spirit saga underscores why sometimes it&#8217;s good to let companies merge — and why even &#8220;big&#8221; companies don&#8217;t necessarily guarantee price increases.
***
Spirit Airlines’ sudden <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/05/spirit-airlines-bankruptcy-costs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a> that it would cease operations left tens of thousands of passengers without flights and some <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/05/spirit-airlines-bankruptcy-costs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17,000 employees</a> without jobs.
Political wrangling has since begun as to who or what was responsible for the airline’s collapse. And while pinning the blame solely on one cause is far too simplistic, Spirit’s demise shows how misguided antitrust policy can exacerbate America’s affordability crisis.
The straw that <a href="https://www.kcra.com/article/elizabeth-warren-pete-buttigieg-jetblue-spirit-merger/71232388" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broke the camel’s back</a> for Spirit appears to have been the recent spike in jet fuel prices, a result of the war in Iran. This unexpected price shock pushed the company, which had been <a href="https://www.kcra.com/article/elizabeth-warren-pete-buttigieg-jetblue-spirit-merger/71232388" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struggling for years</a>, over the solvency cliff.
But the road to Spirit’s collapse begins long before this.
The company <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/29/business/spirit-airlines-bankruptcy.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed to turn a profit</a> since 2019 and had pursued several merger opportunities over the years as a lifeline. In 2022, Spirit entered a <a href="https://www.kcra.com/article/elizabeth-warren-pete-buttigieg-jetblue-spirit-merger/71232388" target="_blank" rel="noopener">merger agreement</a> with fellow ultra-low-cost carrier Frontier. Later that year, Spirit ended its merger agreement with Frontier in order to <a href="https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/press-release-details/2022/JetBlue-and-Spirit-to-Create-a-National-Low-Fare-Challenger-to-the-Dominant-Big-Four-Airlines-07-28-2022/default.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pursue a merger</a> with JetBlue.
But the $3.8 billion merger with JetBlue ran into headwinds when the Biden administration <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/article/spirit-airlines-is-no-more--and-now-the-blame-game-begins-155056781.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAM1dysH4dRwHRv9qtDaqRwGjhCH9mexQiWasnPMuP7u2vnC4gMaS_dimHXgoUEtuWpc_nOpqUFbQqv9sMRi6dFiPHCRWYmaQtodaECzx2HivEjiRAGwCfZvmufH6dHZ3fHVdOSK9_zawQRp5QNX0Q9NMLVic24ttwzS8JXETOnSd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sought to block</a> it in 2023. The merger would have resulted in the country’s fifth-largest airline, with around a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/05/07/spirit-airlines-collapse-democrats-block-jetblue-merger/89948205007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10% share</a> of the market. The administration <a href="https://www.kcra.com/article/elizabeth-warren-pete-buttigieg-jetblue-spirit-merger/71232388" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> that the deal would have led to “higher fares and fewer options” for flyers.
The administration was <a href="https://slate.com/business/2026/05/spirit-airlines-collapse-democrats-biden.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">particularly concerned</a> that losing Spirit as an independent airline would mean eliminating its longtime role as a disruptor in the increasingly consolidated airline industry. Ultimately, a federal judge sided with the administration, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/16/jetblue-spirit-merger-block-in-win-for-bidens-justice-department.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocking</a> the deal from taking place. But many observers are <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/05/07/spirit-airlines-collapse-democrats-block-jetblue-merger/89948205007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">now questioning</a> the administration’s opposition to the merger, as well as the judge’s holding.
That’s because a combined Spirit-JetBlue company, as the fifth-largest carrier, may have posed more of a competitive threat to the nation’s “Big Four” airlines: Delta, United, American, and Southwest. Those airlines control around 75% of the market, which means a Spirit-JetBlue merger could have increased, rather than decreased, competition by putting another (relative) heavyweight into the ring.
As UC Irvine economist Jan Brueckner put it to <a href="https://slate.com/business/2026/05/spirit-airlines-collapse-democrats-biden.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Slate</a>: “A merger of those two carriers could have helped both of them and helped the traveling public, because what the merger would’ve done is create a larger low-cost carrier.” In his view, Spirit’s precarious financial footing argued in favor of greenlighting the deal, since doing so would have at least had the potential of saving the company.
<h3 dir="ltr"><a href="https://manhattan.institute/subscribe?utm_source=DailyWire&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=reihan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.</a></h3>
In other words, in terms of creating competition in the industry, a slightly-less-cheap-but-still-existing Spirit-JetBlue combo airline is better than a super-cheaper-but-no-longer-existing solo version of Spirit.
As an example, Brueckner noted that what might have been an $89 fare on Spirit may have turned into a $110 fare with the merger. But even though this is a higher fare, it would likely have been a more affordable ticket option than what Americans are left with now that Spirit has collapsed.
The episode is reminiscent of other misguided antitrust enforcement efforts during the Biden administration. In the grocery industry, Kroger and Albertsons (the parent company of chains like Safeway and Acme) pursued their own merger back in 2022. Again, the Biden administration opposed it, and again, it did so on the grounds that the merged company would have been too big and led to a less competitive grocery industry. The deal was ultimately <a href="https://reason.com/2024/12/12/kroger-albertsons-merger-halted-by-the-federal-trade-commission/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">halted</a> as a result.
But the administration’s analysis had it backward. Yes, on paper, a combined Albertsons-Kroger would have been the <a href="https://reason.com/2024/08/17/harris-joins-the-ftcs-food-fight-against-kroger-albertsons-merger/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">third-largest</a> brick-and-mortar grocery store chain in the nation. But the Biden administration ignored the presence of online grocery retailers and club stores.
In reality, a Kroger-Albertsons combo would have still trailed the true behemoths in the American grocery sector — Walmart, Amazon, and Costco — and only have comprised <a href="https://laweconcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Kroger-Albertsons-Merger-Full-Paper.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9% of overall grocery sales</a>. So instead of Kroger-Albertsons being a potentially worrisome monopoly, a merged company could have become a more formidable competitor to the real giants of the industry.
As these examples show, larger companies are not always a bad thing. Two slightly-less-dominant companies — those that rank fourth or fifth on the list of industry players — can sometimes combine to create more significant competition for those higher up the totem pole. When such mergers are blocked, the result can be a less competitive and less affordable marketplace.
The reasons behind Spirit’s collapse are multifaceted. But one lesson can be learned for sure: It’s time to put to bed the progressive antitrust fixation that larger companies are always bad.
Jarrett Dieterle is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Spirit Airlines

Spirit’s Collapse Shows Why Bigger Companies Aren’t Always a Bad Thing

MI x DW

Prices

A coalition of state attorneys general led by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is warning major corporations that participating in coordinated “plastics sustainability” initiatives could expose them to serious antitrust and consumer protection liability, according to a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eCxmUDluD7iaEOb6c9qOFvmbrXw03vW9/view">letter</a> obtained by The Daily Wire.
The letter, sent Tuesday, targeted 78 companies affiliated with several prominent plastics and packaging advocacy groups, including Amazon, Lego, Intel, and Microsoft. The attorneys general argue that collective commitments to eliminate products, reduce packaging options, or alter product quality may unlawfully restrain trade by limiting output and bypassing normal market competition.
The warning focuses on companies involved with the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum, and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. These organizations promote industry-wide targets aimed at reducing or eliminating certain plastic products and mandating recyclability and content standards. According to the attorneys general, those targets are not simply aspirational—they function as coordinated pressure campaigns that can distort markets and harm consumers.
This letter follows earlier warnings sent directly to the advocacy groups in October, escalating scrutiny from the organizational level to individual company participation.
The attorneys general warn that companies that continue to adhere to or enforce these policies may face enforcement under the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as state and federal consumer protection laws. The letter emphasizes that membership in an industry association does not shield companies from liability if their conduct results in reduced output, degraded product quality, or higher prices.
Collective action lies at the heart of the concern. The advocacy groups themselves have acknowledged that their goals cannot be achieved through individual corporate decisions alone, but require coordinated commitments across competing firms—a hallmark of the kind of conduct antitrust laws are designed to prevent.
The letter draws on legal <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/attorneys-general-warn-financial-institutions-of-antitrust-violations-over-climate-activism">scrutiny</a> of so-called “net-zero alliances”—industry groups that coordinated commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—as a cautionary example. In those cases, state attorneys general raised antitrust, fiduciary, and consumer protection concerns because competitors aligned on output-related targets and standards instead of competing independently. Some companies responded by withdrawing from the alliances, causing the initiatives to dissolve or weaken without full enforcement actions.
The attorneys general argue this history is instructive because the plastics advocacy groups at issue rely on similar coordinated commitments across multiple companies, which can produce the same anti-competitive effects antitrust law seeks to prevent.
The letter also cites a recent federal court ruling allowing antitrust and consumer protection claims against BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street to proceed. The court found that allegations of coordinated climate commitments leading to reduced output and market manipulation could support legal claims. The attorneys general contend that this precedent directly applies to plastics initiatives.
The letter stresses that environmental or social intentions do not exempt companies from antitrust law. Even for public-interest reasons, courts have consistently held that agreements to restrict output or reduce quality remain illegal. As the attorneys general note, no legal exception allows companies to collude to “protect consumers from their own choices.”
Beyond antitrust concerns, the attorneys general warn that companies may mislead consumers if they promote sustainability targets that are unrealistic, artificially imposed, or unlikely to be met—particularly if they fail to disclose the costs, tradeoffs, or feasibility of those commitments.
Attorney General Uthmeier framed the warning as a response to ideological pressure on corporations. “Multiple advocacy organizations have pressured companies into artificially changing the output and quality of their goods and services in ways that normal market forces would not otherwise bring about,” Uthmeier said. “Advocacy for a particular agenda is not a basis to mislead consumers.”
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, compared the plastics initiatives to ESG-driven net-zero alliances. “When corporations coordinate through advocacy groups to restrict products, degrade quality, or manipulate markets outside normal competitive forces, that raises serious antitrust and consumer protection concerns,” Isaac said. “Coordinated pressure to eliminate products or reduce quality without regard to consumer demand is not sustainability—it is cartel-like behavior dressed up in advocacy language.”
Will Hild, Executive Director of Consumers’ Research, framed the letter as broader pushback against ESG-driven coordination. “State Attorneys General are sending a clear message to corporate America: you cannot collude with woke activists to push a political agenda and expect to escape scrutiny,” Hild said. “These plastics initiatives are not about serving consumers; they are about quietly eliminating products, reducing quality, and driving up costs.”
The attorneys general now demand that companies explain the legal basis for continued participation in these initiatives and provide documents showing why their conduct does not violate antitrust or consumer protection laws. The letter warns that failure to respond could trigger subpoenas or other compulsory legal action.
Requests for comment sent to Amazon, Intel, Lego, and Microsoft were not returned before publication.

US-NEWS-FLA-AG-TRUMP-ENDORSEMENT-OS

State AGs Tell Companies Their Sustainability Pacts Violate Antitrust Laws

Environmentalism

James Uthmeier

U.S.

A coalition of Republican attorneys general, led by the state of Florida, said Wednesday that a major climate group may be violating their states’ antitrust and consumer protection laws by artificially pressuring companies to adopt climate activist policies, according to a letter obtained by The Daily Wire. 
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier warned the Boston-based nonprofit organization Ceres that it may be illegally pressuring companies to adopt net-zero policies. He said the organization was pursuing policies that were an “assault on American families and businesses.”
“Ceres’ efforts to artificially move entire markets and sectors — and in turn artificially change the output and quality of the goods and services produced by those sectors — toward Ceres’ own preferred policy goals bears all the trappings of the ‘adverse, anticompetitive effects’ that antitrust laws seek to prevent,” the attorneys general wrote in the <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/Multistate-letter-to-Ceres_1.20.25-FINAL.pdf">letter</a>. 
Ceres is an advocacy group that <a href="https://www.ceres.org/about">says</a> it is “working to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more just, and resilient world.” In emails <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-06-11%20Climate%20Control%20-%20Exposing%20the%20Decarbonization%20Collusion%20in%20Environmental%2C%20Social%2C%20and%20Governance%20(ESG)%20Investing.pdf">obtained</a> by the House Judiciary Committee, it has described its work as “the Army ground troops” and “an ‘air cover’ strategic and silent bombing campaign by a newly funded division of the Air Force” fighting a war for net zero emissions. 
The group wants to “transform industries” and <a href="https://www.ceres.org/climate">works</a> to &#8220;engage with companies in key economic sectors to ratchet up the ambition of their climate goals, create robust transition action plans, and improve disclosure.”
In the realm of <a href="https://www.ceres.org/banking">banking</a>, Ceres wants to “reduce their exposure to fossil fuel and high-carbon assets and to increase transition financing of Paris-aligned companies and projects.”
Ceres was also influential in the formation of Climate Action 100+, an organization that <a href="https://www.climateaction100.org/">pressures</a> the “world&#8217;s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters [to] take appropriate action on climate change in order to mitigate financial risk and to maximize the long-term value of assets.”
The Republican officials said that Ceres’ “approach depends on collusive action to pressure companies” and that it “coordinates pressure on financial actors and companies through &#8216;stakeholder engagement,&#8217; shareholder resolutions, and even ‘investor campaigns to replace directors.’”
Uthmeier told The Daily Wire that a barrage of anti-trust actions could be result if it does not abandon its &#8220;assault on American families and businesses.&#8221;
“Failure to do so will result in a multi-state barrage of anti-trust enforcement,&#8221; he said. 
After being contacted by The Daily Wire, Ceres said that it has followed all relevant antitrust and consumer protection laws.
&#8220;Ceres has never violated U.S. antitrust or consumer protection laws. Like many organizations and associations – from all sides of the political spectrum – we lawfully educate and engage investors and companies on business financial issues consistent with long-standing market practices. Investors and companies make decisions independently and based on what is in their own best interests,&#8221; the group said in a statement. 
They requested that Ceres respond to their letter with an explanation of how their actions adhere to consumer protection and antitrust laws. Other states that signed on to the letter included Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
The action was praised by Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild and American Energy Institute Founder Jason Isaac.
&#8220;Ceres is a leader of the climate cartel and exploits its ever-growing network to push radical political agendas and ESG policies on companies and organizations, pressuring them to ignore their fiduciary duty, engage in shareholder activism, and adopt radical climate and net-zero goals,” Hild told The Daily Wire.  
Isaac accused Ceres of manipulating the market and attempting to suppress competition. 
“Attorney General Uthmeier’s letter puts a spotlight on what Ceres really is, the ringleader of a coordinated climate cartel operating behind closed doors,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Ceres uses dark money and collusive pressure campaigns to steer capital, punish lawful American industries, and force companies to adopt radical climate agendas they would never choose on their own.&#8221;
This article has been updated with comment from Ceres.

Make Billionaires Pay Rally and March in New York City

GOP Officials Warn Climate Activist Group To Stop Pressuring American Companies

GOP Officials Warn Climate Group Pressuring American Companies To Push Climate Activism

Climate Advocates

Florida

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison has stepped in to personally guarantee $40.4 billion in Paramount Skydance&#8217;s latest effort to pry Warner Bros Discovery away from selling its prized Hollywood assets to streaming giant Netflix.
The guarantee, disclosed in a filing on Monday, seeks to allay the Warner Bros board&#8217;s doubts about Paramount&#8217;s financing and the lack of full Ellison family backing, which had pushed it toward the competing cash-and-stock offer from Netflix.
Here&#8217;s what analysts and market experts are saying about the latest development:
SETH SHAFER, PRINCIPAL ANALYST AT S&amp;P GLOBAL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think the revised bid from Paramount Skydance significantly alters the current status quo. I doubt many WBD shareholders that are on the fence or planning to vote &#8216;no&#8217; were holding out due to issues the revised bid addresses such as a guarantee from Larry Ellison on the funding front.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;re still likely months away from a shareholder vote on the Paramount offer and the planned closing date of the deal agreed with Netflix would be in the second half of 2026. There will likely be many more twists and turns ahead and both Paramount and Netflix have a chance.&#8221;
MICHAEL PACHTER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING AT WEDBUSH SECURITIES, CALIFORNIA
&#8220;The WBD Board rejected the last offer because they thought it was speculative and revocable. This one makes the offer irrevocable and directly addresses the Board&#8217;s concern.
&#8220;If the board is rational and ethical (a big if), it must accept the offer, since the $108 billion PSKY offered is more than the $83 billion offered by Netflix. We;ll see what the Board does, but PSKY is right to make this offer directly to them.&#8221;
&#8220;Yes, Paramount has a chance to win, approaching 100%&#8221;
ROSS BENES, SENIOR ANALYST AT EMARKETER, NEW YORK
&#8220;The updated offer from Paramount doesn&#8217;t change the fact that WBD&#8217;s executives prefer Netflix. The new offer does make Paramount&#8217;s case more compelling to the board and shareholders. But WBD executives will keep fighting to maintain the Netflix deal as long as they can. This battle will be prolonged.&#8221;
PAOLO PESCATORE, ANALYST AT PP FORESIGHT, LONDON
&#8220;Paramount remains in a precarious position and is making a last-ditch effort to avoid being left out in the shadows. It cannot afford to lose out and be a weaker player compared to its stronger rivals.&#8221;
&#8220;The improved offer is a step in the right direction, but it is unlikely to be enough.&#8221;
REUBEN MILLER, HEAD OF ANTITRUST AT DEALREPORTER, WASHINGTON DC
&#8220;The financing from the sovereign wealth funds opens a regulatory box that needs to be checked. Having these players involved will bring another dimension of scrutiny, as well as a big diplomatic question &#8211; how far will using money from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds bring them into partnership with one America&#8217;s cultural touchstones?&#8221;
&#8220;Paramount has claimed that any influence from the funds will be neutralised due to their lack of voting rights, but there are other questions at play which make the picture far murkier. Notably, the access of these funds, as key stakeholders, to WBD and Paramount&#8217;s data, as well as the wider diplomatic implications of foreign bodies having a vested stake in such a huge entity in U.S. media production and consumption.&#8221;
(Reporting by Kritika Lamba in Bengaluru, compiled by Arpan Varghese; Editing by Anil D&#8217;Silva)

In this photo illustration, the Warner Bros Discovery logo

Ellison Steps In With Personal Guarantee As Paramount Fights For Warner Bros

Movies

Netflix

iRobot, the American company that created the robotic vacuum Roomba, filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, sending the company into the arms of its Chinese manufacturer just three years after regulators blocked a proposed sale to Amazon.
Under the <a href="https://media.irobot.com/2025-12-14-iRobot-Announces-Strategic-Transaction-to-Drive-Long-Term-Growth-Plan?utm_source=chatgpt.com">bankruptcy plan</a>, iRobot’s manufacturer, Picea, will take 100% of the company’s equity, shifting ownership from American to Chinese hands. The filing comes after iRobot cited declining sales, increased competition from lower-priced alternatives, and rising supply chain and manufacturing costs. Initially, the company hoped to merge with Amazon to improve its scale and get more competitive pricing for parts and inventory.
While the Federal Trade Commission has not commented on iRobot’s bankruptcy, the commission welcomed the collapse of the Amazon deal in January 2024. “We are pleased that Amazon and iRobot have abandoned their proposed transaction,” the United States Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/statement-regarding-termination-amazons-proposed-acquisition-irobot">said</a>. “The Federal Trade Commission will not hesitate to take action in enforcing the antitrust laws to ensure that competition remains robust.”
Three years later, iRobot’s bankruptcy leaves the United States without a major American-owned competitor in the home robotics industry.
With iRobot’s bankruptcy, shareholders are expected to see their equity wiped out &#8212; an outcome that contrasts sharply with the $61 per share cash payout investors would have received had the Amazon acquisition gone through. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who urged regulators to oppose the deal, said at the time that Amazon should not be allowed to use acquisitions to avoid competition.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“I have serious concerns about Amazon’s deal to buy iRobot,” <a href="https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1575616208417980417">said</a> Warren. “We’re asking the FTC to oppose this proposed deal to protect competition and consumers. Amazon shouldn’t be allowed to just buy their way out of competing.”
After the deal collapsed, iRobot laid off roughly one-third of its workforce and its stock price plummeted. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy later described the company’s struggle as “a sad story.”
“This American company invented this product, invented the category and built a business that was almost $1 billion in revenue,” Jassy said. He argued that successful businesses naturally attract competition, including from Chinese manufacturers, and that iRobot needed scale to survive.
“They needed to scale because scale lets you buy components at the right price and invest in R&amp;D,” Jassy said.
Jassy also addressed privacy concerns, noting that robotic vacuums must map the inside of customers’ homes to avoid running into furniture.
“What Western regulators were saying is that they trust these two large Chinese companies with maps of the inside of U.S. consumers&#8217; homes more than they do Amazon,” he said. “That can’t be what we were going for. I think we&#8217;ve got to try and find a way to be reasonable with what we are doing.”
At the time the deal was blocked, the Federal Trade Commission was chaired by President Joe Biden appointee Lina Khan, who quickly became known for her aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement, particularly toward large technology companies. Khan now <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mamdanis-transition-team-a-reflection-of-his-leftism">serves</a> as New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s transition team chair.

In this photo illustration, the IRobot logo is seen

Regulators Blocked Amazon-iRobot Deal, Now Bankruptcy Sends Company Back To China

Amazon

Communist China

Robots

World

President Donald Trump weighed in on the anticipated Netflix–Warner Bros. merger, saying the amount of market share Netflix would gain &#8220;could be a problem.&#8221;
Trump took questions from the red carpet at a Kennedy Center event over the weekend. Then on Monday, Paramount challenged Netflix with an aggressive bid of its own.
“Netflix is a great company. They’ve done a phenomenal job. Ted is a fantastic man,” he said of Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, mentioning they met in the Oval Office last week. “I have a lot of respect for him, but it’s a lot of market share, so we’ll have to see what happens.”
When asked if Netflix should purchase Warner Bros., Trump replied, “Well that’s the question.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="WATCH: Trump Comments On Netflix-Warner Bros. Acquisition" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R6dSXSeDPv8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“They have a very big market share and when they have Warner Bros., you know, that share goes up a lot so, I don’t know,” the president added. “I’ll be involved in that decision, too. But they have a very big market share.”
The decision is expected to require approval by the Justice Department&#8217;s antitrust division. 
Paramount Skydance on Monday launched a bid to buy Warner Bros. Paramount CEO David Ellison is the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is a friend of President Trump and a major donor.
The all-cash offer was touted as being “superior value, and a more certain and quicker path to completion,” plus promised “$18 billion more in cash” compared to the Netflix offer, per a <a href="https://ir.paramount.com/news-releases/news-release-details/paramount-launches-all-cash-tender-offer-acquire-warner-bros" target="_blank" rel="noopener">press release</a> shared on Monday.
Netflix announced on Friday that it would acquire Warner Bros., including its film and television studios, HBO Max and HBO, in a massive deal valued at $82.7 billion.
Netflix said Warner Bros.’ current method of operating, “including theatrical releases for films,” will continue in an apparent effort to quell fears from critics of the acquisition.
“I know some of you’re surprised that we’re making this acquisition, and I certainly understand why. Over the years, we have been known to be builders, not buyers,” Sarandos said during an investor call Friday morning, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/netflix-to-acquire-warner-bros-in-massive-billion-dollar-deal">reported</a>.
“We already have incredible shows and movies and a great business model, and it’s working for talent, it’s working for consumers and it’s working for shareholders. This is a rare opportunity,” he said. “It’s going to help us achieve our mission to entertain the world and to bring people together through great stories.”
The acquisition is expected to close once Warner Bros. completes its planned spinoff from Discovery Global, meaning the deal would potentially finalize in the third quarter of 2026.

Donald Trump

Trump Warns Netflix-Warner Bros. Deal ‘Could Be A Problem’

Trump Warns Netflix-Warner Bros. Deal 'Could Be A Problem'

Television

The UnitedHealth Group revealed Thursday that it is cooperating with a federal investigation over alleged Medicare fraud allegations. This comes after a long string of setbacks to the multinational corporation, including the murder of the CEO of one of its subsidiaries.
In May, the Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/unitedhealth-medicare-fraud-investigation-df80667f?mod=article_inline">reported</a> that UnitedHealth was reportedly under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for possible Medicare fraud since. According to the WSJ, the DOJ alleged that UnitedHealth was encouraging its practitioners and insurers to add extra payments onto patients&#8217; records in order to receive more payments from the federal government through Medicare Advantage programs.
UnitedHealth originally denied those claims, <a href="https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2025/2025-05-14-response-may-14-wsj-article.html">saying</a> that &#8220;We have not been notified by the Department of Justice of the supposed criminal investigation reported,&#8221; and adding that the WSJ&#8217;s reporting was &#8220;deeply irresponsible.&#8221;
According to a new <a href="https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2025/2025-07-24-uhg-responds-to-doj-investigation.html">press release</a>, UnitedHealth acknowledged being the subject of a federal investigation over a month after the WSJ&#8217;s report.
&#8220;The Company has now begun complying with formal criminal and civil requests from the Department,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;The Company has full confidence in its practices and is committed to working cooperatively with the Department throughout this process.&#8221;
This investigation into UnitedHealth&#8217;s practices is one in a long line of blows to confidence in the company. Most notably, in December 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth&#8217;s insurance arm, was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/luigi-mangiones-chilling-diaries-revealed-in-court-parasites-simply-had-it-coming?author=Nathan+Gay&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Luigi+Mangione%E2%80%99s+Chilling+Diaries+Revealed+In+Court%3A+%E2%80%98Parasites+Simply+Had+It+Coming%E2%80%99">gunned down</a> in New York City.
Luigi Mangione, the man arrested for Thompson&#8217;s murder, allegedly committed the murder for symbolic reasons — in order to affect change within the healthcare industry in America. A manifesto collected from his person revealed as much in June.
UnitedHealth is also facing a massive antitrust suit from around the time of Thompson&#8217;s murder over their planned merger with Amedisys, a hospice and home elderly care service. The DOJ is <a href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-and-plaintiff-states-v-unitedhealth-group-inc-and-amedisys-inc">suing</a> UnitedHealth in order to stop the merger between the two multi-billion dollar corporations.
In addition, UnitedHealth is currently under a different antitrust investigation for its coordination with Optum Health, the company&#8217;s employer of medical practitioners. The WSJ <a href="https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/unitedhealth-contacts-u-s-justice-amid-reports-of-medicare-billing-probe-8892033e?mod=hp_lead_pos2">reported</a> on an email from UnitedHealth to a former employee in March stating that &#8220;the government has asked us some questions regarding Optum&#8217;s coding practices.&#8221;
Since a massive <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-health-insurance-company-hit-with-cyberattack-from-suspected-nation-state-actor-crippling-pharmacies-ability-to-process-prescriptions">data breach</a> that affected a subsidiary of UnitedHealth early last year, on top of the murder of Thompson and these antitrust lawsuits, the company&#8217;s stock price has fallen significantly. UnitedHealth&#8217;s stock price has fallen by more than 3% following the recent news of cooperation with the federal government over Medicare fraud allegations.

United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson Fatally Shot In Midtown Manhattan

UnitedHealth Submits To DOJ Investigation Over Medicare Fraud Allegations

Health Insurance

UnitedHealthcare

A federal judge in Virginia ruled on Thursday that Google illegally monopolized two advertising markets, paving the way for prosecutors to push for the breakup of Google&#8217;s advertising products, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-finds-google-holds-illegal-online-ad-tech-monopolies-2025-04-17/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
According to the ruling from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, Google broke the law by monopolizing the markets for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges. Brinkema wrote in a 115-page opinion that Google &#8220;engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising,&#8221; Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-17/google-partially-loses-us-advertising-tech-antitrust-case?srnd=homepage-americas" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
&#8220;For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets,&#8221; the judge added.
Google also pushed &#8220;anticompetitive policies on its customers&#8221; and &#8220;harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,&#8221; according to Brinkema.
Google&#8217;s lawyers pushed back, arguing that the case brought against the company focused on its past practices when it was seeking to connect tools to competitors&#8217; products. The tech giant&#8217;s defense also said that prosecutors ignored some of Google&#8217;s large competitors, such as Amazon and Comcast, when digital ad spending shifted to streaming services and apps, Reuters reported.
The ruling against Google in Virginia comes as the tech giant faces a separate antitrust case, with the Department of Justice looking to force the company to sell its Chrome browser, which processes 90% of internet searches in the United States. The DOJ argues that &#8220;Google&#8217;s unlawful behavior has deprived rivals not only of critical distribution channels but also distribution partners who could otherwise enable entry into these markets by competitors in new and innovative ways.&#8221;
Last year, a federal judge <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-rules-google-has-illegal-monopoly-over-search-engines?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Federal+Judge+Rules+Google+Has+Illegal+Monopoly+Over+Search+Engines" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sided</a> with the DOJ and agreed that Google has a monopoly over search engines. A trial to decide a remedy for Google&#8217;s search engine monopoly is <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/google-argues-doj-internet-search-monopoly-remedies-will-harm-consumers/#:~:text=The%20brief%20previews%20how%20the,open%20internet%20search%20competitive%20again.">set to begin</a> on Monday in Washington.
Google has also been accused of censoring Right-leaning news and favoring legacy media outlets in its search function. Republican lawmakers <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lawmakers-expand-probe-into-google-meta-over-alleged-censorship-of-trump-assassination-attempt-info?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Lawmakers+Expand+Probe+Into+Google%2C+Meta+Over+Alleged+Censorship+Of+Trump+Assassination+Attempt+Info" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigated</a> Google last year after its search recommendations appeared to remove mentions of the assassination attempt on then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Google claimed that the assassination attempt search recommendations were omitted because of a safety protocol.

Google

Google Illegally Monopolized Advertising Markets, Federal Judge Rules

Big Tech

Courts

Judge

Gail Slater, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, is finally expected to be confirmed by the United States Senate in the coming days. From her work on the Senate staff of Vice President JD Vance to her pro-consumer bent, she’s proven she’ll be prudent and effective.
In her recent confirmation hearing, Slater made it clear that she will bring the DOJ back to its evidence-based approach of targeting companies that have truly harmed competition rather than those who are merely scapegoated for macroeconomic conditions. Adherence to the facts and the law will improve antitrust enforcement, allowing the department’s staff to focus their talents where they belong — on cheaters.
I believe in strong antitrust enforcement. As a lawmaker, I often joined bipartisan coalitions to encourage it when warranted. That legitimate enforcement of antitrust laws is impaired when overreach becomes the rage. Unfortunately, that&#8217;s exactly what happened under the Biden-Harris administration.
For example, as Fox News recently highlighted, the Biden DOJ recently went after Visa’s debit card network. Are we really supposed to believe that not enough companies are competing in the debit card space? With tokenization and decentralized finance tools spreading like Georgia Kudzu, actions like this strain credibility. More likely, the Biden-Harris administration needed to deflect blame for inflation, so Visa became a political “whipping boy.”
The Biden DOJ also sued property management software, blaming them for higher housing costs. Why blame supply chain issues, restrictive zoning laws, and high regulatory costs when you can just blame the software that told the American people about the rising costs of Biden’s economy, I guess?
Gail Slater can fix it. In her confirmation hearing, she said she will prioritize “surgical enforcement” over reckless attacks on innovative businesses. Instead of wielding antitrust law as a blunt instrument to reshape entire industries like the Biden Antitrust Division did, she will deploy it only as a “precision tool”—intervening only where there is clear, demonstrable evidence of consumer harm. And in those cases, Gail Slater will be a warrior for consumers. By removing so many false positive cases off the Antitrust Division docket, Slater will have significantly more time to devote to the most pressing threats to free speech and collusive corporate behavior, of which there remain plenty.
For example, Slater stated in her confirmation hearing that she will pay significant attention to Google. This is great news for the conservatives who have long argued that the company, as the dominant force in online search and digital advertising, has used its power to marginalize conservative perspectives, including by manipulating search algorithms, demonetizing conservative content on YouTube, and restricting access to conservative news outlets. Google could likely resolve many of these concerns by remediating the censorship it has allowed. Of course, putting the One America News Network on YouTubeTV would be a great start!
Another area of enforcement that Slater highlighted as a prime example of antitrust violations deserving DOJ scrutiny is the issue of group boycotts against conservative businesses. We’ve seen the coordinated exclusion of conservative media outlets from advertising platforms through entities like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and NewsGuard. We&#8217;ve also seen financial institutions denying services to firearm manufacturers and faith-based organization.
It is clear that when dominant players in an industry collude to exclude or financially strangle disfavored businesses, competition is not just distorted — it is intentionally sabotaged. This represents precisely the kind of collusive conduct that antitrust law was designed to address — and Slater’s DOJ will make sure these cases are treated with the seriousness they deserve.
As you can see, Slater’s strategy is not to avoid enforcement — it’s to make enforcement more effective. By concentrating on cases of monopolization and exclusionary practices, the DOJ can achieve more successes and stronger legal outcomes.
This kind of focused enforcement incentivizes better behavior and compliance from industry, too. When businesses know that the DOJ will act decisively where real harm exists, they are more likely to be better corporate citizens with consumer protection top of mind.
This is the antitrust policy America needs — one that fosters innovation, consumer choice, and economic growth while holding genuinely bad actors accountable. The Senate should confirm her immediately.
* * *
Matt Gaetz is a former U.S. congressman from Florida who served on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law. He is also a former Attorney General nominee from President Donald J. Trump. Presently, Gaetz is the host of The Matt Gaetz Show on One America News Network.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing For Todd Blanche And Abigail Slater

Why The Senate Must Confirm Gail Slater As DOJ Antitrust Czar

Biden Administration

Matt Gaetz

Opinion

Pam Bondi

President Trump

U.S. Senate

The House Judiciary Committee is ramping up its investigation into the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which allegedly colluded with advertisers to keep business from conservative news outlets.
Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Thursday <a href="https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1819078756600099182">wrote</a> to more than 40 companies connected to GARM, instructing them to turn over relevant documents to the committee. Jordan also asked the companies—including behemoths like Pepsi, Adidas, and Shell—whether they agreed with GARM&#8217;s actions.
&#8220;The Committee has uncovered evidence of coordinated action by GARM and its member companies, including boycotts of disfavored social media platforms, podcasts, and news outlets,&#8221; Jordan writes.
Jordan&#8217;s letter is the latest step in the committee&#8217;s probe of GARM. Last month, Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-here-ben-shapiro-testifies-to-congress-on-censorship-updated-live">testified</a> before the committee about GARM&#8217;s actions. Emails obtained by the committee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ad-firm-replaces-ceo-after-congressional-face-off-with-ben-shapiro-on-censorship">showed</a> GARM and ad-buying executives expressing contempt for conservatives, admitting that they used rules about &#8220;conspiracy theories&#8221; and &#8220;misinformation&#8221; as a pretext to withhold revenue from conservative news sites, including The Daily Wire.
The committee&#8217;s investigation could clarify whether GARM and ad firms were manipulating or misrepresenting their customers, or if those customers were active participants in denying ads to conservative websites. If those companies—many of whom are direct competitors—coordinated their activities, they could run afoul of antitrust laws, Jordan said.
According to the committee, GARM has &#8220;deviated far from its original intent&#8221; or creating a &#8220;&#8216;more sustainable and responsible digital environment,'&#8221; and instead &#8220;has collectively used its immense market power to demonetize voices and viewpoints the group disagrees with—even intervening in situations that do not have a so-called &#8216;brand safety&#8217; concern.&#8221;
Jordan asked each company whether it agreed with GARM executive Robert Rakowitz&#8217;s complaint that an “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” and “taking US norms and applying them globally” was a hindrance to advertisers.
The letters also ask whether the companies &#8220;participate in any collective boycotts with GARM or its members that it believes is exempt from antitrust law, and whether they supported or were &#8220;aware of the coordinated actions taken by GARM toward news outlets and podcasts such as The Joe Rogan Experience, The Daily Wire, Breitbart News, or Fox News, or other conservative media.&#8221;
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amiracist.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1722626094661000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0xeRV2yZnGyN0DMA1KI89w">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; — MATT WALSH&#8217;S EXPOSÉ ON DEI</a>
Emails reveal that Joe Barone, GroupM’s Managing Partner Brand Safety Americas, admitted the group had “Daily Wire on our Global High Risk exclusion list, categorized as Conspiracy Theories.”
In an email to Rakowitz, GroupM Executive Vice President of Global Brand Safety John Montgomery admitted that the group did not find that The Daily Wire published misinformation.
GroupM CEO Christian Juhl struggled to explain the emails when he testified before the committee alongside Shapiro. He was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ad-firm-replaces-ceo-after-congressional-face-off-with-ben-shapiro-on-censorship">replaced</a> as CEO soon after.
The companies receiving congressional letters as GARM members include:
Adidas Group 
Adidas North America 
American Express 
Bayer AG 
Bayer U.S. 
Beiersdorf AG 
Beiersdorf North America 
BP 
BP America 
Centene Corporation 
Chanel 
Chanel 
Colgate-Palmolive 
CVS Health 
Dell Technologies 
Electronic Arts 
Foreign: 
FrieslandCampina 
FrieslandCampina 
General Mills 
Goldman Sachs 
Haleon 
HP Incorporated 
Ikea U.S. 
Ingka Group 
Johnson &amp; Johnson 
Kellanova 
Kenvue Incorporated 
Kimberly-Clark Corporation 
L&#8217;Oréal 
L&#8217;Oréal USA 
Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy 
Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy, North America 
Mastercard 
McDonald&#8217;s Corporation 
Merck &amp; Co. Incorporated 
Microsoft Corp 
Mondelēz International 
NIKE Incorporated 
PepsiCo 
Perfetti Van Melle 
Perfetti Van Melle 
Pernod Ricard 
Pernod Ricard North America 
Red Bull GmbH 
Red Bull North America Inc. 
Roblox 
Sanofi 
Sanofi 
Scotiabank 
Scotiabank U.S. 
Shell 
Shell USA 
Sony Corporation of America 
Sony Group 
Suntory Global Spirits 
Suntory Holdings 
Verizon 
Volvo Cars 
Volvo Cars USA

Ben Shapiro

House Committee Expands Probe Into Anti-Conservative Advertising Collusion

Jim Jordan

NewsGuard

Social Media Censorship

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares sued the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ncaa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NCAA</a> on Wednesday, accusing the organization of antitrust violations related to its name, image, and likeness (NIL) policies.
According to the <a href="https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2024/pr24-10-NCAA.Antitrust.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a>, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on Wednesday, the NCAA has been “artificially depressing” the amount of compensation prospective student-athletes can earn through NIL deals and their ability to negotiate those deals.
“This is all about protecting student athletes and prospective student athletes in making sure that they have market sources available to properly value their name, image, and likeness rights [because] the NCAA has a structure that artificially restricts the market in a way that hurts the student athletes,” Skrmetti told The Daily Wire.
“Student athletes are the heart of college sports and everybody else in college sports is getting rich, and the student athletes are getting left behind because of the lack of competition for their name, image, and likeness rights. That’s illegal and it’s not fair. It’s not right,” he added.
The lawsuit is aimed at rules from the NCAA that limit the ability of prospective student athletes to negotiate NIL rights. According to the suit, these rules harm athletes “at a critical juncture in the recruiting calendar.”
The lawsuit says that the rule “bans prospective college athletes (including current college athletes looking to transfer to another school who are in the ‘transfer portal’) from discussing potential NIL opportunities before they actually enroll. It’s like a coach looking for a new job, and freely talking to many different schools, but being unable to negotiate salary until after he’s picked one (the depressive effect on coaches’ wages in such a dysfunctional market is obvious).”
The NCAA has said the rules act as necessary protections for student athletes after they were first allowed to pursue such deals in 2021.
Skrmetti said that the issue came to his attention last year after there was concern that the NCAA might institute a postseason ban for the University of Tennessee football team after recruiting violations that occurred under a former coach. He said the bowl ban would have harmed the NIL rights of the students who were not connected to the infractions.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1706370777182000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1rZs278QeRErxuxwtCwcq8">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“Student-athletes generate massive revenues for the NCAA, its members, and corporations within the college sports industry, especially in football and basketball,” Miyares <a href="https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/2680-january-31-2024-attorney-general-miyares-sues-ncaa-over-nil-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement. “Student athletes should have more freedom over negotiating and earning money for their skills and ability. Colleges and universities benefit dramatically from the success of their student athletes &#8212; it’s only fair that student athletes also get the full picture of how they may benefit from their choice of school as well.”
Skrmetti said that the suit wasn’t directed to protect any specific institution, but was about the rights of student athletes and the principle that “concentrated power causes harm.”
“I’m not for, necessarily, the Wild West of unregulated college sports, but what we have now is such an inconsistent and arbitrary and unfair system, there has to be some deep change to make sure that it both comports with the law and is doing right by student athletes,” he said.

Menu