If a US company operates in a different country as well, it has to abide by the laws of that country, or leave it. For example, Adobe's acquisition of Figma was blocked by the UK and EU regulators, despite them both being US companies headquartered in San Francisco. They could have chosen to leave the UK and EU markets entirely, in which case their merger would have been able to proceed, but they wouldn't have been able to sell anything to UK/EU citizens.

Either they comply or exit the country. Remember how the UK blocked the Microsoft/Activision merger for a time?

They have production, distribution, and marketing ops in other markets. Those could be flogged until compliance.

It is a lie. You are holding on a possible short time gain while ignoring history proven long-term harm of reduced competition, which will lead to higher prices, less innovation, and fewer choices for consumers.

USA anti-trust process is a joke, it is shame that so many company with global footprint relies on that.

> WB content is not globally available, Netflix content is.

Neither are "globally available" as "globally" includes countries that are currently under US embargo, and both those companies are US companies who (supposedly) follow US law.

What you're welcoming isn't "I didn't have access before, now I do!" but rather "I could give Company A money to see this, now I can give company B money to see the same!" which I guess you're happy about, but other's obviously see it for what it is, no practical change except for shareholders.

You keep posting this without any idea whether Netflix will relicense anything at all or if you're going to get the movies you want.

It's just copium fueled corporate bootlicking at this point.