Why Regulatory Approval Must Be Paused or Denied
The proposed merger between Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix must be stopped because it would create irreversible concentration at a moment when judicial, regulatory, and administrative review is actively ongoing across multiple jurisdictions.
Notice of Procedural Inflection Point
Public-Interest · Antitrust · Administrative Due Process
A convergence of judicially anchored filings, unfinished administrative rulemaking, and active cross-border regulatory notice has created a material risk of irreversible harm should further media consolidation proceed at this time.
This document formally requests an IMMEDIATE STOP ORDER on any proposed or pending transaction involving the consolidation of Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix, or any equivalent combination of content ownership, global distribution, advertising systems, or audience data.
LEGAL BASIS FOR STOP ORDER
This request is grounded in established principles of merger control, antitrust law, administrative due process, public-interest review, and evidence-preservation obligations.
No finding of guilt is asserted.
No adjudication is pre-empted.
The request is procedural, proportional, and time-limited.
TRIGGERS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE PAUSE
- Judicial records are fixed before a Commonwealth superior court.
- Core media-distribution rulemaking remains unresolved.
- Cross-border regulatory notice is active across multiple jurisdictions.
- Irreversibility risk is high once consolidation is consummated.
WHY A STOP ORDER IS REQUIRED — NOW
- To prevent pre-emption of lawful oversight
- To avoid entrenchment of unresolved administrative failures
- To preserve competition and future remedies
- To protect evidence, witnesses, and due-process integrity
Ongoing Judicial Reviews
These matters are currently under review across multiple jurisdictions, including proceedings and filings before courts in London, Antigua & Barbuda, and now Central California. Aspects of the consolidated record are subject to examination by aSpecial Master, Sir Barry Paul Cotter, and appellate review.
Within those pleadings, the death of Mark Lieberman is referenced in connection with the originating litigation and associated events. These materials are presented for judicial and investigative consideration only. No findings of fact or determinations of cause have been made.
