As Chairman Mike Lee said, Netflix will be “the one platform to rule them all” if the merger is allowed to happen. This outcome harms consumers of streaming services as well as the talent that produces such compelling content.

Not surprisingly, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos tried to dispel concerns by providing a broad definition of the relevant market in which Netflix competes. His prepared words speak the YouTubethe alleged rival of Netflix, 25 times. “Including YouTube and the like, Netflix accounts for less than 10% of TV viewing,” Mr. Sarandos insisted.

Bruce Campbell, Chief Revenue and Strategy Officer for Warner Bros., added that Netflix is ​​competing against short-form user-generated content, such as TikTok and Instagram.

It doesn’t take an antitrust economist to understand why their comparison to ad-supported, amateur-produced content is misleading. But here’s one more.

Just because two services are competing for viewers’ attention doesn’t mean they’re in the same antitrust market. If the policymakers included all the things that compete for the attention of the viewers, they should include the beautiful sunsets with Netflix, YouTube and TikTok in a big market of attention.

To determine the contours of a market, courts rely on a hypothetical monopolist test. This test considers whether a seller of a specified set of products can profitably raise the prices of those products by a small but significant amount (called “SSNIP”) above the competitive level. When conducting a joint review, the test is applied initially above minimum set of products offered by the merging parties.

Applied here, one may ask, can a subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) provider raise its prices beyond competitive levels without shedding large numbers of viewers. If yes, then there is a relevant antitrust market, because the provider enjoys pricing power. If not, the market is expanded to include close substitutes, repeating the test until a profitable price increase is achieved.

Evidence suggests that Netflix already enjoys considerable pricing power. It has been able to increase the cost of standard and premium packages at 29% and 39%each, since 2020, while still continuing to gather more viewers. Netflix also charges a premium price relative to its peers, which further indicates power. If user-made platforms prevent it, as you would believe the proponents of the merger, then subscribers will cancel their subscriptions in favor of YouTube or TikTok. But they didn’t.

The stories of Mr. Sarandos and Mr. Campbell about competing with user-generated platforms doesn’t pass a sniff test either. YouTube content, for example, is mostly produced by new creators — which is a key reason why such videos are usually free or ad-supported. In contrast, Netflix invests heavily in high-quality content. It plans to spend as much as possible $20 billion this year.

Think of it this way: When a family sits down for movie night, they don’t flip to YouTube. Conversely, if they want a DIY tutorial or a clip of a cat playing the piano, they don’t open Netflix.

Under a reasonable definition of the SVOD market, Netflix’s market dominance is impossible to ignore. So far it has about a third to all streaming subscribers worldwide. The addition of Warner Bros.’ HBO Max, which controls another 13%, would create a streaming giant with nearly half of all SVOD subscribers.

Combine that with Warner’s extensive content catalog, and users will have to keep their subscription to access mainstream movies and films. Smaller streamers will likely have to consolidate just to keep up, which will start a snowball effect on the market.

Many lawmakers have raised the point that such control would give Netflix too much power to push an ideological agenda. While the debate about Netflix’s “wakeism” at the hearing may be ancillary to traditional antitrust concerns, it should be considered whether a company should have such unilateral control over what content viewers receive. As pointed out by Mr. Sarandos and Mr. Campbell, entertainment shapes culture.

Netflix is ​​the number one SVOD provider, with 325 million subscribers worldwide. Warner Bros., with 125 million subscribers, is the fourth largest. Putting these two giant streaming services under one roof is the epitome of a horizontal integration that harms consumers. This would give it great power to raise prices and stifle competition. No amount of CEO spin can change those basic facts.

The question now turns to whether Trump’s antitrust enforcers will buy what Netflix is ​​selling, and if not, how will the Warner Bros. board respond?

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of luck.