Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: DOJ signals evidence-based antitrust scrutiny of AI, broadcast, media distribution, (Apr 27, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Federal enforcement in evolving media markets should focus on structural issues, exclusionary conduct, and evidence-based market realities rather than preserving any particular business model or responding to the loudest industry complaints.

In a speech delivered at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Show in Las Vegas, Deputy Assistant Attorney General G. Charles Beller said the DOJ Antitrust Division’s role in a rapidly changing media landscape is to protect competition through disciplined, evidence-based enforcement, not to pick winners, preserve existing business models, or resolve every commercial dispute. Beller emphasized that federal antitrust enforcement must focus on issues where the DOJ is uniquely positioned to act, including structural concerns, exclusionary conduct, and market dynamics that affect competition at scale. He said technological change, including artificial intelligence, requires “cautious humility:” AI may expand competition and reshape content creation, but it is not a blanket defense to unlawful consolidation or anticompetitive conduct. Beller also stressed that broadcast remains an important part of the media ecosystem, especially in local markets and live programming. At the same time, broader changes in distribution require antitrust enforcers to assess whether new gatekeepers are emerging and whether content and distribution markets remain competitive.

Las Vegas, Beller said, illustrates the dynamic nature of media and entertainment competition in the U.S. Once enjoying a near monopoly on legal gambling, the city faced growing competitive pressure as other states entered the market, a trend that accelerated after legal barriers to sports betting were removed less than a decade ago. Yet Las Vegas survived and adapted, transforming itself into a major destination for media, sports, and live entertainment.

Evolving industry. Beller said the media and entertainment sector is rapidly evolving, with consumers now able to access content through broadcast, cable, satellite, streaming, direct-to-consumer services, and digital and social media platforms. That expansion has increased both distribution options and total media output. Against that backdrop, he identified two guiding principles for DOJ antitrust enforcement: (1) the Antitrust Division’s priorities must remain rooted in federal interests, with state and private enforcement serving as complements rather than substitutes; and (2) technological change, including artificial intelligence, must be assessed with “cautious humility,” recognizing both the disruptive potential of new technology and the continued relevance of traditional antitrust principles.

Antitrust enforcement. Beller said federal antitrust enforcement operates within a broader legal and regulatory ecosystem that includes the DOJ, the FTC, state attorneys general, foreign competition authorities, the FCC, and private litigants. Because the DOJ Antitrust Division has finite taxpayer-funded resources, he said it should not try to resolve every commercial complaint or assume that every competitive concern requires federal intervention.

Instead, the Division’s role is to protect the competitive process where federal enforcement is uniquely positioned to act, focusing on structural issues, exclusionary conduct, and market dynamics that affect competition at scale. He emphasized that disciplined, evidence-based judgment is necessary to preserve DOJ's credibility and resources, citing the Division’s work involving Google, Live Nation, and Microsoft as examples of federal enforcement addressing significant competition problems.

Media market competition. Beller next turned to the substance of competition in media markets, emphasizing that while content remains central, the ways content reaches consumers have changed dramatically. He cited Bill Gates’s 1996 observation that “content is king,” but said the modern media landscape requires antitrust enforcers not to evaluate today’s markets using assumptions rooted in a period of relative scarcity. Distribution has expanded through cable, satellite, the Internet, streaming, direct-to-consumer services, and digital platforms, but that broader choice does not eliminate the possibility of market power. New distribution channels can become gatekeepers by controlling how content is discovered, monetized, and delivered to audiences. When conduct or consolidation in those channels threatens to foreclose competition in distribution or content markets, Beller said it warrants scrutiny.

Beller also addressed upstream content creation, identifying quality and price as two longstanding antitrust considerations. Regarding quality, he said artificial intelligence could reshape content creation by lowering barriers and creating new competitive tools, much as the early internet did. But he cautioned that AI is not a catch-all defense to competitive concerns, unlawful consolidation, or anticompetitive conduct. Claims that AI will create future competition must be tested against evidence, and enforcers must remain forward-looking without becoming speculative. He added that human creativity continues to drive value in content markets.

As to price, Beller said the analysis remains familiar, especially for live programming, where content rights are scarce, valuable, and intensely contested. The antitrust question, he said, is not whether prices are high, but whether the process that produces those prices remains competitive, including whether multiple parties can bid and whether constraints limit participation or distort outcomes. He then highlighted broadcast television’s continuing importance in local markets, live programming, and broad audience reach. Broadcast, he said, remains part of both content and distribution markets, so transactions or conduct affecting broadcast can have meaningful competitive consequences, but must be evaluated in light of the broader, more complex media ecosystem.

Beller concluded that DOJ’s objective is not to preserve any particular media model or favor one set of market participants, but to ensure that the industry evolves in a way that preserves competition, supports innovation, benefits consumers, and allows media institutions to adapt.

News: Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews