I'm not entirely sure. This seems to be a move to cajole the studios to rethink their distribution methods, which have been in place since the 1940s. Back then the studios owned their own theaters and could control distribution to those theaters only, limiting the public's ability to see certain popular actors/actresses by forcing them to pay the studio-owned theater to see them, so the government sued on antitrust grounds and won. The advent of television, home video, and now online streaming have made this system obsolete.
I'm not entirely sure. This seems to be a move to cajole the studios to rethink their distribution methods, which have been in place since the 1940s. Back then the studios owned their own theaters and could control distribution to those theaters only, limiting the public's ability to see certain popular actors/actresses by forcing them to pay the studio-owned theater to see them, so the government sued on antitrust grounds and won. The advent of television, home video, and now online streaming have made this system obsolete.
But certain studios could still lock an individual actor into only being in their films? Like the studios do with recording artists?