Paramount’s Potential China Problem
Paramount's $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. faces scrutiny over foreign investment, particularly due to Tencent's partial ownership in Skydance, which merged with Paramount. Despite Tencent stepping back from direct financing, its existing stake raises concerns about Chinese influence and potential data security risks for millions of streaming subscribers. Lawmakers like Senators Warren and Booker are urging a CFIUS review to assess national security implications of the deal’s foreign capital structure.
- ▪Tencent holds about 10% of Skydance and roughly 5% of the merged Skydance/Paramount entity.
- ▪Paramount claims CFIUS review isn't needed because Tencent is no longer a direct financing partner and foreign investors won't have governance rights.
- ▪Sens. Warren and Booker argue that Tencent’s pattern of investment may be designed to evade regulatory scrutiny.
- ▪The combined streaming services of HBO Max and Paramount+ have around 210 million global subscribers, raising data privacy concerns.
- ▪The White House previously considered forcing Tencent to divest from Epic Games over data security worries.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Bulwark Goes to HollywoodParamount’s Potential China ProblemPlus: A ‘Devil’-ish assignment!Sonny BunchMay 01, 2026ShareAn aerial view of the Paramount logo on the water tower at Paramount Studios on December 8, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)Earlier this week, I hopped on camera with our very own Catherine Rampell largely to discuss the ways the FCC is both being used to ding opponents of Donald Trump (via FCC chief Brendan Carr’s ridiculous decision to demand ABC renew their broadcast licenses early in the face of mean jokes by Jimmy Kimmel) and being asked to aid allies of Donald Trump (by waiving a rule that requires foreign entities to own no more than 25 percent of companies that have broadcast licenses).
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Bulwark.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Bulwark
