r/CordCuttingToday

Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro is digging in his heels against the Federal Communications Commission. During an interview at the D23 Expo, D’Amaro stated that ABC will not yield to pressure from the regulator regarding its broadcast licenses and editorial decisions.

The FCC is currently reviewing the network's licenses, a process the company contends is an attempt to censor its journalism and a violation of the First Amendment. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has suggested the review involves both DEI policies and the network’s editorial choices regarding presidential coverage. D’Amaro dismissed these concerns, stating that Disney will stand by its journalistic standards and will not allow the agency to dictate how it manages its business.

Beyond the regulatory conflict, D’Amaro addressed ongoing speculation regarding the future of Disney’s television assets. As competitors like Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, and NBCUniversal consolidate or spin off divisions, D’Amaro confirmed that Disney has no intention of offloading ABC or ESPN.

He argued that both networks remain significant cash generators and are vital to the company’s digital strategy. Disney intends to integrate more sports content directly into Disney+ to increase user engagement. Furthermore, D’Amaro downplayed the need for Disney to participate in the current wave of industry mergers. He stated that Disney already holds a superior library of intellectual property and enough scale to compete without acquiring new businesses.

Looking ahead, the company is preparing to launch a free, ad-supported tier on Disney+ by next spring. D’Amaro described this as a way to expose potential customers to the brand, serving as a gateway to full paid subscriptions and a new revenue stream for the platform.

The executive also addressed the company’s recent financial struggles. With Disney stock down over 40% over the last five years, D’Amaro acknowledged that neither he nor the shareholders are satisfied with the current valuation. However, he remains confident that a focus on streaming profitability, quality film production, and the transition of ESPN to a direct-to-consumer model will eventually improve the company's financial standing.

ABC and Disney filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging an FCC order that mandates an early review of eight broadcast station licenses. The legal action aims to halt these renewal proceedings, which the network describes as an unconstitutional attempt by the Trump administration to penalize the company for its editorial content.

The dispute began in April when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr ordered the early license reviews. ABC alleges this move followed repeated criticism from the Trump administration regarding the network's news coverage and comments made by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. The lawsuit contends that the administration is leveraging the threat of license revocation to coerce the network into shifting its programming.

Beyond the license review, the network is battling a separate FCC effort to apply “equal-time” rules to the talk show The View. ABC maintains that this move contradicts established commission precedents that have been in place for over two decades.

In its legal filing, the network argued that the implications extend to the broader media landscape. It warned that if the administration succeeds, other media companies may feel compelled to align their reporting with government preferences to avoid federal intervention.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the board, voiced support for the lawsuit. She described the FCC's recent actions as a campaign of censorship, noting that using license renewals to influence speech constitutes government overreach.

Chairman Carr has publicly defended his agency’s oversight. He argues that broadcasters utilize public airwaves and are therefore required to serve the public interest. He maintains that the commission is simply holding the network to those established obligations.

Paramount is asking a federal court to require 12 state attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America to post a $1.88 billion bond. The company says the group's antitrust lawsuits are delaying its $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery and costing millions of dollars every day.

The core of Paramount's financial demand comes from a ticking fee built into the merger agreement. Starting October 1, CEO David Ellison is required to pay WBD shareholders 25 cents per share for every day the deal remains unclosed. That breaks down to $7 million per day, or $650 million per quarter.

The antitrust trial is scheduled to run from March 2 to March 19, 2027, with the final merger deadline set for June 4, 2027. Paramount agreed to delay the closing until shortly after the trial concludes, meaning the company expects to owe shareholders at least $1.3 billion in ticking fees by the time a judge issues a final decision.

Paramount argues that federal antitrust law requires plaintiffs to post a bond to cover potential damages if they halt a transaction and ultimately lose in court. Beyond the ticking fees, the company stated that the delay threatens to void regulatory approvals it has already secured from 68 jurisdictions, forcing them to spend more money to restart the clearance process. Paramount also noted that the eight-month delay puts employee job security in limbo and halts plans for content production and company integration.

A spokesperson for Paramount defended the move, stating that the lawsuits are the only barrier left to completing the deal. "Both the Clayton Act and other federal law expressly provide that plaintiffs are required to post a bond covering the potential harm from halting a transaction to litigate," the spokesperson said.

State officials pushed back immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta released a statement calling the bond request an attempt at "blackmail" designed to force the state to drop the lawsuit.

>"Paramount and Warner Bros. are two sophisticated companies who willfully decided to include a costly ticking fee as a provision in their merger contract," Bonta’s office said. "They knew this merger would undergo regulatory review; they knew it was not a done deal; and they chose to include it anyway."

Bonta also pointed out that Paramount agreed to the current trial timeline without asking for a bond at the time, accusing the company of trying to get a "do-over" now that the financial costs are mounting.

Despite the dispute, Paramount maintains that the lawsuit lacks merit and plans to defend the merger in court ahead of the March trial date.

While the legal texts of the Clayton Antitrust Act do include provisions for injunction bonds, courts historically set a high bar for forcing government entities—like state attorneys general—to post multi-billion-dollar bonds.

The likelihood of the full $1.88 billion bond being issued as requested is low to moderate, driven by several legal and practical hurdles:

• Immunity and Public Interest: State attorneys general act in an enforcement and public-protection capacity. Courts are generally reluctant to impose heavy financial roadblocks on state regulators executing public interest mandates, as it can create a chilling effect on governmental oversight.
• The "Waived Right" Argument: As California AG Rob Bonta’s office pointed out, Paramount previously agreed to the current trial timeline and a "no-close" arrangement without demanding a bond condition at that time. Judges typically look unfavorably on parties trying to retroactively alter the ground rules of agreed-upon scheduling orders once financial buyer's remorse or mounting pressure sets in.
• Discretionary Sizing: Even if the presiding judge (Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin) agrees that some form of security or bond is technically warranted under the statute due to the massive scale of the ticking fees, judges frequently scale down extraordinary demands or deny them outright if they risk barring access to the courts for legitimate antitrust scrutiny.

In short, while Paramount's legal team is utilizing the demand as aggressive leverage to force a settlement or counter the financial bleeding, getting a federal judge to successfully bind state governments and a labor union to a nearly $2 billion payment shield is an uphill battle.

Newsmax plans to file a federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission over its recent vote to eliminate the rule limiting television station ownership.

The FCC voted along party lines to scrap the 3 percent audience cap, which previously restricted a single company from owning local TV stations that reach more than 3 percent of American viewers. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty voted in favor of the repeal, arguing the change is necessary for traditional broadcasters to compete with streaming services and fund local news operations. The lone Democrat on the commission, Anna Gomez, voted against it.

Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy stated that the network will formally launch legal action once the vote is codified in the Federal Register next month. According to Ruddy, the commission overstepped its authority by dismantling a limit established by Congress.

>"It's a blatant violation of federal law," Ruddy said. "Congress set the cap. It didn't want the FCC to set the cap."

Ruddy asserted that the decision primarily benefits major broadcast conglomerates like Nexstar Media Group by enabling industry consolidation and increasing retransmission consent fees. He expressed concern that such consolidation would squeeze the budgets of cable and satellite providers, potentially threatening carriage for independent channels like Newsmax.

Ruddy also criticized Carr, arguing that the policy change runs counter to mainstream conservative interests and was not a priority for the Trump administration.

Newsmax is already involved in separate legal challenges regarding media consolidation, including a paused lawsuit concerning Nexstar's proposed acquisition of TEGNA. The upcoming lawsuit will target the ownership cap repeal directly.

Paramount executives have discussed establishing an independent board to oversee CBS News and CNN as the company navigates regulatory scrutiny surrounding its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

The merger is currently stalled due to an antitrust lawsuit filed in federal court by California and 11 other states, with a trial scheduled for March. State regulators argue the combination would grant the company excessive power in cable television and theatrical film distribution.

Discussions regarding an editorial oversight board began before the lawsuit. The concept addresses ongoing questions about whether Paramount CEO David Ellison might influence news coverage at CNN or CBS News if the acquisition proceeds. Scrutiny intensified following a legal settlement over a "60 Minutes" broadcast and leadership appointments at CBS News, which prompted internal concerns about editorial independence. CBS has denied any political interference.

Addressing the controversy in a recent guest essay, Ellison argued that the opposition to the merger focuses on questions regarding his political neutrality rather than traditional antitrust concerns. He stated that he has voted for candidates from multiple parties and intends to maintain factual, independent news operations.

Political figures have also commented on the transaction. President Donald Trump has previously expressed support for restructuring CNN as part of the corporate deal or through a separate sale.

David Ellison wants everyone to believe he is a misunderstood movie fan trying to rescue the entertainment industry. Then, he threatens to tear it apart.

When California Attorney General Rob Bonta and officials from 11 other states filed an antitrust lawsuit to block Paramount Skydance from acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery, Ellison responded with a hardball ultimatum. He warned that if the states refuse to settle, he will pull Paramount Studios—and potentially Warner Bros.—out of California entirely.

This threat undermines Ellison's own public relations campaign. Just days prior, he published an essay insisting his combined company would not hold excessive market power and that the antitrust challenge was merely a political maneuver over his future ownership of CNN.

Yet, threatening to uproot massive entertainment institutions and relocate them thousands of miles away to states like Texas or Tennessee proves the polar opposite. If one executive can unilaterally decide to relocate the infrastructure of American cinema in a fit of anger, that is the definition of excessive influence.

Moving corporate headquarters to states with lower costs of living and fewer regulations has become trendy among billionaires. Tech leaders like Elon Musk and Ellison's own father, Larry Ellison, have previously moved companies out of California.

However, moving a tech firm is different from uprooting a movie studio. Software engineers can log in from anywhere, but the physical infrastructure of filmmaking—soundstages, costume shops, post-production houses, and thousands of crew members—cannot simply be packed into a moving truck overnight. While corporate executives can easily absorb a cross-country move or commute, the local workers who actually build the industry cannot.

Ellison claims his proposed mega-studio will produce dozens of films and hundreds of television shows every year, creating more jobs for everyone. But holding the birthplace of cinematic storytelling hostage by threatening to relocate its assets exposes a different motive.

Ellison is not trying to save Hollywood; he is leveraging it.

Two major entertainment industry unions are pushing for a settlement in the legal battle over the planned merger between Paramount and Warner Bros.

The Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees sent a joint letter this week to Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The unions, representing 200,000 members, stated that ongoing legal delays and industry uncertainty have already led to paused film projects and reduced work for crew members.

The proposed multi-billion-dollar deal would combine major film and television operations, including Warner Bros., HBO, CBS, CNN, HGTV, and Comedy Central.

Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the transaction, arguing it would reduce market competition, cut jobs, and lower wages.

Rather than asking the state to drop the lawsuit entirely, the union leaders outlined nine conditions for a potential settlement. Their demands include keeping the studio divisions separate, committing to a minimum number of annual theatrical film releases, maintaining operations within the United States, and keeping HBO available on third-party distribution platforms.

Bonta's office has maintained that the merger violates antitrust laws, pointing to the massive debt burden required to finance the acquisition. Without a settlement, both sides are preparing for a court trial set for March in Oakland.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta dismissed an ultimatum from Paramount executive David Ellison, who threatened to relocate the company out of state if the attorney general refuses to settle an ongoing antitrust lawsuit.

The conflict centers on the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. A coalition of 12 states, led by Bonta, is suing to block the deal, arguing it will harm market competition across theatrical distribution and basic cable licensing.

Ellison recently told company executives that the Paramount Skydance board approved plans to begin leaving California on October 1 unless settlement talks begin. While Ellison has not picked a final destination, sources indicate the company is looking at Texas, Tennessee, and Georgia. Ellison also stated publicly that he remains confident the merger will close and that the company will win the courtroom battle.

Bonta pushed back sharply on social media, accusing the company of trying to force the state's hand.

>"Paramount has lost the plot as it continues to lose in court," Bonta wrote. "It didn't work the first time... and it won't work this time."

Legal observers and advocacy groups remain skeptical that any compromise can save the merger. Critics argue the structural impact on the entertainment industry is too severe to resolve through a settlement, leaving the dispute firmly on a path toward trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding internal Federal Communications Commission records regarding the early license renewal requirements placed on eight ABC-owned stations.

The ACLU maintains that the FCC is using discrimination rules as a pretext to penalize ABC for coverage and commentary disliked by Trump. According to the filing, the action is intended to intimidate other broadcasters and discourage critical reporting.

The organization pointed to public threats from Trump and FCC Chair Brendan Carr following content aired on Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The View. The ACLU argues these warnings, combined with the timing of the early renewals, demonstrate a pattern of retaliation against protected speech.

Other free speech organizations, including the National Coalition Against Censorship and the Knight First Amendment Institute, have previously raised similar concerns about government pressure on media outlets, including recent inquiries into NPR, PBS, and CBS.

The FOIA request specifically targets internal FCC communications and documents created since January 20, 2025. It covers records concerning the decision to force early renewals for Disney-owned stations, discussions involving ABC or its staff, and any communications referencing complaints from Trump and top administration officials regarding broadcast content.

The Supreme Court has fundamentally changed how independent federal agencies operate. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court overturned a 1935 precedent that protected commissioners at agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the FCC from being fired at will by the president. Now, more than 20 regulatory bodies answer directly to the executive branch.

For the FCC, this change carries immediate consequences. Because broadcasters, cable operators, and media networks rely heavily on federal approvals, licenses, and renewals, their relationship with the government depends on political stability.

The risk of this direct control is no longer theoretical. In a concurring opinion in the Slaughter case, Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted comments made by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr regarding late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Carr had publicly suggested on a podcast that ABC needed to answer for Kimmel’s critical monologues, warning that the FCC could handle the matter "the easy way or the hard way."

Gorsuch used the example to issue a stark warning: when an agency controlled by the president uses implied regulatory threats to punish disfavored speech, it violates the First Amendment. Coming from a conservative justice who supported expanding presidential power, the message is clear. The danger is not just a legal theory; it is how political appointees might actually use their authority.

Historically, the FCC functioned as an independent expert body focused on technical standards, spectrum allocation, and market competition. While past presidents attempted to influence policy, the agency's norm was to follow congressional statutes rather than police specific jokes, monologues, or editorial content on behalf of the administration.

The combination of the Trump v. Slaughter ruling and the Carr-Kimmel episode threatens to break that tradition. When a president can fire commissioners instantly, and a chairman hints at regulatory action against critics, the FCC risks becoming a de facto Presidential Communications Commission. In this model, the priority shifts from public service and fair competition to whether media programming aligns with presidential favor.

The FCC possesses immense enforcement power, capable of imposing fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. Armed with new constitutional authority to replace uncooperative commissioners at any time, a presidential administration can easily use informal pressure—such as speeches, interviews, and public statements—to intimidate corporate boardrooms.

Broadcasters and media networks face a critical choice. They must be prepared to invoke the First Amendment and refuse to let political pressure dictate programming decisions. At the same time, industry groups must press Congress to re-examine the statutory framework of the FCC. The question is whether the nation's primary communications regulator will maintain its independent culture or slide permanently into an arm of executive speech enforcement.

The FCC has officially scrapped the 39 percent ownership cap on television stations. For over two decades, regulations prevented a single company from owning stations that reached more than 39 percent of the American public. That rule is now gone, replaced by a policy that allows the commission to review mergers and acquisitions on a case-by-case basis.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr championed the change, arguing that the old limit was a relic of a different media era. According to Carr, the cap did not protect the public; it only prevented local broadcasters from achieving the same scale as their national competitors. By removing the ceiling, the commission aims to allow local stations to bulk up their operations to stay relevant in a shifting market.

The move marks a significant shift in media regulation, but it is not without controversy. While proponents view this as a necessary modernization, critics are already preparing for a legal fight.

Democratic Commissioner Anna M. Gomez voted against the change, describing it as an unlawful overstep of the agency’s power. She warned that removing the cap would not save local stations from financial pressure—it would simply shift the balance of power toward large station groups, likely leading to further consolidation across the industry.

Consumer advocacy group Free Press has already signaled its intent to sue, challenging the FCC’s authority to unilaterally discard a rule that has been on the books since 2004. With the regulatory gate now open, the industry expects a surge in acquisition activity, though the upcoming legal challenges could force the courts to decide if the FCC has the authority to make such a sweeping change on its own.

The Federal Communications Commission has eliminated a rule that limited single media companies from owning local television stations reaching more than 39 percent of U.S. households. Established by Congress in 2004 to protect viewpoint diversity, the cap has been replaced by a case-by-case review system where future broadcast deals will be judged on a public interest standard.

Major broadcast groups lobbied hard for the change. Companies like Nexstar and Sinclair argued that the old limit handcuffed traditional TV stations while exempting digital competitors like Google, YouTube, and Netflix from similar restrictions. Proponents claim the change gives local stations the financial footing needed to fund investigative reporting and survive in a shifting media market.

However, the decision faces fierce pushback. Critics argue that the FCC lacks the legal authority to erase a limit set by Congress, warning that consolidation will lead to fewer independent voices, closed newsrooms, and higher bills for viewers. Democratic lawmakers and consumer groups also raised concerns that the new, vague review process invites political bias into regulatory approvals.

The tension between the stated goal of protecting local reporting and the reality of industry consolidation is at the core of the debate over the FCC’s decision.

When major conglomerates acquire more stations to achieve scale, the economic rationale is rarely to invest heavily in boots-on-the-ground journalism. Instead, large-scale media mergers are typically driven by the efficiencies of centralization:

• Hollowed-Out Newsrooms: To cut costs, corporate parent companies frequently merge newsrooms across neighboring markets, lay off local reporters, and reduce the number of locally produced newscasts.

• Centralized Hubs and Syndication: Rather than covering local town councils or school boards, consolidated station groups often rely on regional or national hubs to beam in weather, sports, and standardized segments across dozens of markets at once.

• The Dumbing Down of News: Critics argue that as corporate overhead shrinks, local stations stop functioning as independent community watchdogs and instead turn into automated transmitters for pre-packaged, centralized, or partisan programming.

While proponents like Carr argue that scale gives broadcasters the financial armor to survive against Big Tech, data and historical precedent suggest that sweeping consolidation often produces the polar opposite effect—replacing authentic, community-focused journalism with streamlined corporate enshitification.

Even without the federal cap, major mergers are far from guaranteed. Antitrust enforcement by state attorneys general remains a primary obstacle for large-scale broadcast deals. For example, the pending multi-billion-dollar merger between Nexstar and Tegna—which would control stations reaching 80 percent of households—remains frozen due to a preliminary injunction secured by state antitrust lawsuits.

Legal experts expect the FCC's decision to face immediate court challenges, with questions centered on whether an administrative agency can legally repeal limits written into federal law.

Tubi is scaling faster than ever. The Fox-owned ad-supported streaming service has officially crossed 110 million monthly active users and surpassed $1 billion in annual revenue, closing out the most lucrative quarter in the company's history.

The numbers point to a broader shift in consumer behavior. As major paid streaming services raise prices and introduce ad-supported tiers, Tubi CEO Anjali Sud says viewers are increasingly rejecting fragmentation and paywalls in favor of free, on-demand entertainment.

Unlike traditional platforms that measure growth purely by sign-ups, Tubi is seeing its engagement outpace user acquisition. Total watch time grew 17 percent, outpacing a 14 percent increase in active viewers. That combination indicates that audiences are not just trying the service; they are staying and watching. Expanding Beyond Traditional TV

For parent company Fox, Tubi has evolved from a simple video-on-demand library into a core driver of its digital business. Advertisers are increasingly drawn to the platform because its audience is actively choosing what to watch, rather than leaving a broadcast running in the background.

To maintain that momentum, Tubi is doubling down on three specific areas:

• While Tubi cannot compete for massive, standalone NFL or NBA broadcast packages, it leverages Fox's sports portfolio creatively. For example, a dedicated World Cup hub attracted roughly 20 million viewers by targeting younger, casual fans. The platform also experiments with niche formats, such as creator-led alternative broadcasts for Formula 1 races.

• Through initiatives like Red Seat Ventures, Tubi integrates independent creators, podcasters, and non-Hollywood storytellers directly into its ecosystem—casting them in originals and licensing their content.

• By blending traditional streaming with creator content and live events, Tubi gathers distinct viewer insights to guide its next phase of programming.

As competitors like Netflix and Disney+ adopt free tiers and experiment with creator partnerships, Sud believes Tubi's decade-long bet on free streaming has been fully validated by the market.

There's been quite a bit of stuff that popped up on there in the past month. The Masters of the Universe movie just dropped on there just a month after hitting theaters. Batman Caped Crusader's second season finally came out, and The Rings of Power's third season got a trailer out recently too. And yet with all that was still worth being excited for, it's all still bogged down by the fact that it's all dropping on Prime Video.

Normally I would be more hyped for whatever comes on there, but between all that occurred in the past year, be it fueled by greed or backed by political BS, it just wasn't possible to be willing to boot the thing up at all. With them locking 4K HDR viewing behind a paywall along with the ability to watch everything without all those godforsaken cringy ads getting in the way, I'm stuck having to wait until clips of the shows get uploaded onto YouTube instead.

At this point it would be hard to really be excited for Secret Level when that comes back because of the fact that you won't be able to experience the show at its best with 4K HDR and no ads interrupting them.