A newly formed Hollywood coalition is asking for an unusually direct intervention in the streaming business: a U.S. legal requirement that major streaming services commit at least half of their content budgets to productions from independent American studios or producers.

The American Entertainment Alliance, or AEA, counts talent agencies CAA, WME and UTA among its founding members. They are joined by independent production and entertainment companies including Anonymous Content, Blumhouse, Imagine Entertainment, Legendary Entertainment, MRC, North Road, Producers United, Propagate Content and Ziffren Brittenham, along with Jeff Sagansky.

Its proposed 50% spending requirement would apply to streamers such as Netflix, Prime Video, HBO Max and Disney+. But the alliance’s agenda reaches further than a single budget target. It is also seeking rules that would return licensing and syndication rights to the outside production company behind a movie or television show after a number of years, plus transparency requirements for the algorithms that shape what users are shown.

The plan sets up a clear clash over who should control the economics and discovery systems of the streaming era: the large platforms financing and distributing programming, or the producers, agencies and creators arguing that consolidation has narrowed their routes to market.

What the American Entertainment Alliance wants

The AEA describes itself as a coalition focused on competition, opportunity for independent producers and creators, and U.S.-based film and television production. Its diagnosis is that studio consolidation and the streaming model have dramatically reduced the market for independent content and disrupted the economic foundation of film and TV work.

Its main requests can be grouped into three policy areas:

  • An independent-production spending mandate: Streaming providers would be required to direct at least 50% of their content budgets to content supplied by U.S. independent studios or producers.
  • Reversion of rights: Licensing and syndication rights for shows and films would return to the production company or outside studio after several years.
  • Algorithmic transparency: Platforms would have to be more open about the algorithms that determine audience discovery, with a goal of preventing platform self-preferencing.

Each point addresses a different stage in the life of a screen project. The budget rule concerns who gets commissioned. Rights reversion concerns who retains value after a project has been made. Algorithmic transparency concerns whether a title can realistically reach viewers once it is on a service.

That combination is important. A show or movie can be funded but still have limited long-term value to its producer if the platform keeps the relevant rights indefinitely. It can also be available to subscribers yet struggle to find an audience if the service’s recommendation and promotion systems do not place it in front of likely viewers.

Why the 50% figure is the centerpiece

A content budget is the pool of money a service dedicates to programming. AEA’s proposed rule would not merely encourage platforms to work with independents; it would create a mandated allocation for them. In practical terms, the proposal is designed to ensure a major share of streamer spending reaches companies outside the platform’s own corporate structure.

The alliance frames this as a competition and employment issue. It says concentration of power in the U.S. film and television business puts entertainment jobs at risk, affecting workers across production as well as writers, actors and viewers. UTA vice chairman and board member Jay Sures argued that increasing consolidation calls for a regulatory framework that prioritizes creators, protects industry workers and preserves competition.

“Independent” is central to the proposal, but the supplied details do not define how lawmakers would determine whether a producer qualifies. That would be one of the consequential details in any future legislation. A quota can only be administered if the law specifies which ownership relationships, financing arrangements or distribution ties count as independent.

Similarly, “content budget” sounds straightforward but would require a precise legal definition. Streamers spend on a wide range of programming arrangements and production activity. Whether a given outlay qualified toward the 50% threshold would shape the real reach of the rule. The alliance has stated the desired outcome—half of budgets for U.S. independent studios or producers—but not the proposed accounting method.

Those unanswered mechanics do not lessen the scale of the request. They show why this is a regulatory proposal rather than a simple industry preference. A binding quota would require lawmakers and regulators to translate an economic objective into enforceable standards.

Rights reversion: the second major fight

The AEA’s rights proposal is aimed at what happens after production. Licensing rights are permissions to exploit or distribute a work under agreed terms. Syndication rights generally concern the ability to license programming for further distribution. Under the alliance’s preferred approach, those rights would revert after a few years to the production company or external studio behind the title.

Reversion means rights return to a previous owner or rights holder after a defined period. In the context outlined by the coalition, that could give an outside producer a renewed ability to license its movie or show after the initial streaming relationship has run its course.

The principle is distinct from the 50% spending proposal. A project could be commissioned from an independent producer, yet the producer could remain restricted in what it can do with the finished work if rights stay with the platform permanently. The AEA is seeking a structure intended to create a later opportunity for the producer to monetize or redistribute the title.

For audiences, this debate is connected to where a show may be accessible over time, though the coalition has not set out a specific viewing outcome. More generally, rights ownership affects the choices available after an initial run ends: whether a production company can pursue additional licensing opportunities, and whether a project remains locked to its original distribution arrangement.

That question sits in the background of ongoing television business conversations, including viewing milestones such as a recent premiere-week audience report for CBS. The AEA proposal, however, is specifically about the contractual and ownership framework around film and TV projects, not a judgment on any individual series or broadcaster.

Algorithms and the problem of discoverability

The third proposal concerns recommendation systems. An algorithm is a set of rules or calculations used by a platform to organize information or make recommendations. On a streaming service, such systems can influence the rows, categories, title suggestions and other pathways through which a subscriber encounters programming.

The AEA wants transparency in the algorithms used to determine audience discovery and wants to prohibit “platform self-preferencing.” In plain terms, self-preferencing refers to a platform giving preferential treatment to its own offerings over those from outside suppliers. The coalition’s concern is that a platform with both distribution power and production interests can influence visibility in ways that favor programming tied to the platform itself.

The alliance has not specified what level of disclosure it believes would be necessary. Algorithmic transparency could potentially mean information about the broad factors affecting recommendations, oversight of how titles are ranked or promoted, or another approach. The announced position establishes the policy goal—making discovery systems more accountable and limiting self-preference—without supplying technical rules for implementation.

For independent producers, discovery matters because an acquisition is not the same as prominence. A title may be part of a large catalogue, but its cultural and commercial prospects can be shaped by how easily potential viewers encounter it. For platforms, algorithms are also a core part of the viewing experience they offer customers. That makes transparency one of the likeliest areas for disagreement over proprietary systems, trade practices and regulation.

Streamers’ response: mandates could hurt production

The Streaming Innovation Alliance responded by rejecting the proposal for government direction of greenlighting decisions. Its membership includes Netflix, Disney, Peacock, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount—now merged as Skydance—and TelevisaUnivision.

The group argues that viewers have more options in the streaming era than ever before, with the ability to watch across different services, price points and free advertising-supported options. It also cited polling figures saying more than 70% of Americans view streaming favorably, while nearly 75% believe streamers should face the same amount of regulation or less regulation than they do now. The group said support is higher among younger consumers and communities of color.

Its core objection is that mandatory allocations would intrude on the greenlighting process, the process through which a platform decides what to commission or acquire. The Streaming Innovation Alliance characterizes the proposed requirement as a blunt mandate and says it could reduce production and discourage creative risk-taking.

This is the central divide in the debate. The AEA argues that the existing market structure gives concentrated platforms too much power and requires guardrails to sustain competition and independent opportunity. The streamers’ alliance argues that compulsory programming rules would undermine the flexibility that supports consumer choice and creative investment.

What is established, and what remains unsettled

What is established is that major agencies and a group of production-sector companies are openly aligning behind a federal policy agenda that includes a 50% independent-production target. That is a notable step because the coalition is not merely asking platforms to voluntarily increase outside commissions; it is calling for legislation.

Also clear is that the agenda treats commissioning, ownership and recommendation as connected parts of the same market. The AEA’s case is not solely about getting more projects sold. It is about who gets to make projects, who controls them years later, and how audiences are directed to them.

What remains unsettled is virtually everything required to turn that agenda into a working law: which services would be covered, exactly how budgets would be measured, how independent status would be defined, when rights would revert, what exceptions might apply, and how algorithmic transparency could be delivered without exposing sensitive platform systems. No legislative text, timetable or enforcement approach is included in the coalition’s stated goals.

For now, the American Entertainment Alliance has put a far-reaching position on the table. It asks lawmakers to make independent production a legally protected share of streaming investment, give outside producers a path back to their rights, and scrutinize the systems that decide what viewers find. The streaming industry’s answer is equally direct: it sees those measures as government interference that could weaken the very production ecosystem the coalition wants to reshape.