WME, CAA and UTA Push Law to Force Streamers to Buy 50% from Indies

By Tom Whitfield

Three major Hollywood agencies — WME, CAA and UTA — have formed a coalition with production companies including Imagine Entertainment and Legendary to push legislation that would force streamers to buy at least 50% of their original content from independent producers. The proposal would also cap licensing terms, reviving secondary markets that have largely disappeared.

The plan is a modern reboot of the FCC's "financial interest and syndication" rules, adopted in 1970 and repealed in the mid-90s. Those rules forced the three broadcast networks to buy shows from independent producers such as Norman Lear and Grant Tinker — the era that produced "All in the Family" and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show."

What does the proposal actually change?

Ken Ziffren, co-founder of Ziffren Brittenham LLP, has campaigned for a restoration of fin-syn for decades. "The tax incentive may change where the production shoots, but it doesn't change who owns and profits from it," Ziffren said. He argues the federal tax credit "only goes so far" and "can't be a complete effort, unless it's paired with a modernized ownership framework."

The mechanics of the current market are stark:

• Streamers typically make shows themselves or buy from a handful of major studios.
• When they do buy from independents, they take all rights for 10-20 years.
• Jeff Sagansky, a producer and investor, says the four dominant players "act as an oligopoly" and are ordering 30-40% fewer hours of programming than a few years ago.

Mark Vahradian, producer of the "Transformers" franchise and a founding member of Producers United, said consolidation kills the incentive to innovate. "There's no incentive for the creators to go out and build something brand new," Vahradian said. "That's why they're only making sequels and franchise titles."

Who is opposing it?

The Streaming Innovation Alliance, which includes Netflix, called the proposal a package of "blunt government mandates" that would "only dampen production and discourage creative risk-taking." Andrew Long, a senior fellow at the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank, said the streaming marketplace is far more diversified than the three-network era of 1970 and that the mandates could raise First Amendment concerns. "It's hard to find factual predicate that would justify this kind of government intervention in the video distribution marketplace in 2026," Long said.

There is precedent for failure. In 2002, a group led by Ziffren, the Coalition for Program Diversity, asked the FCC to require that 25% of primetime programming come from independent producers. In a deregulatory era, the plea went nowhere.

The new effort also has a timing problem. Supporters tried to attach a version of their ideas to the tax credit bill introduced in September. Despite what they describe as positive meetings, they were rebuffed. They are now aiming for 2027, when Democrats are expected to control at least one chamber of Congress. And the initiative would require an act of Congress, since the FCC's authority stops at the public airwaves.

Can the coalition hold together?

Rep. Laura Friedman, a co-author of the tax incentive bill and a former producer, sympathized with producers' concerns about consolidation and threats to diverse voices — but kept her distance. "My focus right now is on passing our bipartisan national film tax credit bill to put film and television workers back on the job," Friedman said in a statement.

Rich Shuter, head of business affairs at UTA, insists the two goals can coexist. "We don't want to stall the federal tax credit from being passed as quickly as possible," Shuter said. "We hope the administration and Congress recognize this is a supplemental benefit."

That assurance may be tested. The fin-syn push has the potential to sow division in an industry that has united behind the first-ever federal film incentive, and it faces adamant opposition from Netflix, Amazon and the other platforms. The open question is whether President Trump's vow to "save" Hollywood translates into appetite for ownership mandates — something no tax bill currently on the table addresses.