Welcome to Netflix's 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. I will now turn the call over to Netflix's Assistant Secretary, Reg Thompson, to begin the meeting. Good afternoon. My name is Reg Thompson, and I am the Assistant Secretary of Netflix, Inc. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the company's 2026 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The annual meeting is now called to order. This meeting is being held to consider the proposals listed in the proxy statement previously delivered to you and to conduct such other business as may properly come before the meeting. Broadridge Financial Solutions has provided a signed affidavit that the notice of the meeting and internet availability of The proxy materials were mailed beginning April 16th, 2026, and it went to all stockholders of record as of April 6th, 2026, our record date. The Inspector of Elections, Lou Larson, a representative of Broadridge, has confirmed a quorum is present, so the meeting is duly constituted, and the polls are now open. We have three management proposals on the ballot that will be voted on at this meeting. One, the election of directors. Two, the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young as our independent auditors for the year ending December 31st, 2026. Three, advisory approval of our named executive officer compensation. We also have four stockholder proposals on the ballot. The sponsors of these proposals wish to make a brief presentation, so we will call on them now. Operator, please open the line for John Chevedden for proposal four. Hello, this is John Chevedden. Proposal four, Shareholder Right to Act by Written Consent. Shareholders request the board of directors take the necessary steps to permit written consent by the shareholders entitled to cast the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize an action at A meeting in which all shareholders entitled to vote thereon were present and voting without any unnecessary restriction based on length of stock ownership or the method by which shareholders hold their shares. Shareholders acting by written consent and calling for a special shareholder meeting are two means that shareholders of a company can use to put forth a proposal on a timely basis without waiting for the annual shareholder meeting. According to state law, Netflix shareholders can have the right to act by written consent and the right to call for a special shareholder meeting. Both rights allow shareholders to take action between annual meetings. Shame on Netflix for suggesting that its shareholders limit themselves to one shareholder right when Netflix shareholders are entitled to two shareholder rights under state law. Netflix shareholders are best served when they have both rights. Written consent is a shareholder right that requires the formal backing of a Netflix majority based on all shares outstanding. This majority support requirement, in reality, is much more than majority support because it's not economically possible to contact a significant% of Netflix shares to get their formal backing. Thus, for an issue to get majority support based on all shares outstanding under written consent, it could take more than 60% support from the Netflix shares that are economically possible to reach. How can Netflix be opposed to a 60% majority? Being opposed to this proposal means being opposed to a 60% majority of Netflix shareholders. Please vote in favor of 60% majority decisions and vote for shareholder right to act by written consent, proposal four. Thank you. Operator, please open the line for Steve Milloy for proposal five. Good afternoon, fellow shareholders. My name is Steve Milloy. I am the Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. I'm asking you to vote yes on proposal number five for a report on the profitability of Netflix's environmental, social, and governance investments. Management opposes our proposal because it doesn't want you to know that its ESG efforts are all show and no go, all pain and no gain, all loss and no profit, and all politics and no business. If you go on the Netflix website, you can see the movies and shows that are trending. What's not trending is Netflix profits. Why not? Possibly management is wasting its time and corporate resources pursuing ESG. ESG is just left-wing politics, not business. Let's consider the elements of ESG. The E part of ESG stands for environment, mostly climate. What is management doing on climate? It's formulating business decisions that rely on a discredited climate model that has just been abandoned by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Indisputable climate reality is that the entire U.S. could go dark today and forever, it would make no difference to the climate. The math is simple. Why does management imagine that Netflix needs to fret emissions? The S part of ESG stands for social. It's mostly made up of DEI, which is just more silliness. Although more than half the population is comprised of women, only 34% of Netflix senior management is female. Of course, we don't know if that is even true since, per Netflix policy, employees can pick their own gender. Of the 34% of corporate leadership classified as women, how many are real women versus imaginary women? How are we supposed to know? There's no gender asterisk. Does management ignore gender preference when making up statistics? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy? In the end, if you truly want to end discrimination, just stop discriminating. Hire based on competence, not unimportant, if not absurd, demographics. The G in ESG stands for governance. Does anyone really need governance standards when state and federal laws already impose fiduciary duties on management? As long as management strives to earn as much money as possible within the bounds of the law, talk about governance is just nonsense virtue signaling at best. At worst, governance is a scheme cooked up by fake left-wing shareholders to advance their political and social agenda at the expense of bona fide shareholders. Our stock price is down 28% over the past year. Netflix pays no dividends. Shareholders care about business competence as related to financial returns, of which there currently aren't any. They don't care about pretend ethics standards. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously wrote that the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits. Businesses are not governments, charities, or political and social activist groups, but management has not focused on profits for shareholders. Even as the stock market hits new all-time highs, Netflix shareholders are not benefiting. Management apparently expects shareholders to take comfort in its virtue signaling ESG money pit. Vote yes on proposal number five to get management back on the track of profit signaling. Thank you. The operator, please play the pre-recorded presentation from Stefan Padfield for proposal six. My name is Stefan Padfield, and I am a principal of the Free Enterprise Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. I am here to provide a statement in support of proposal six, which has been submitted by Bowyer Research on behalf of the Kenneth W. Nimmons and Juliet I. Nimmons trusts. These trusts represent two parents and grandparents who raised their children with the closely held belief that babies are born male or female, and who are tired of seeing Netflix lose customers due to programming in direct conflict with those beliefs. Proposal six seeks a report on politicized brand misalignment, particularly focusing on the risks associated with Netflix pushing sexualized content and transgender ideology on children. The proposal cites numerous red flags supporting the conclusion that Netflix has a serious problem when it comes to pushing sexualized content and transgender ideology on children, including that Tesla CEO Elon Musk publicly canceled his Netflix subscription over one of these shows and urged others to do the same, Leading to a reported drop in Netflix's stock price, and that another of these films sparked so much controversy over depicting the sexualization of children that a grand jury indicted the company over child exploitation charges. Additional red flags can be found via 2025 and 2026 headlines that include, one, Former Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron targets Netflix over transgender content for kids with the 1792 Exchange CEO questioning state subsidies for Netflix over transgender content in children's shows. Two, Netflix faces rising boycott over content controversies. Three, Senate panel questions Netflix WBD merger on political bias, including Netflix programming being described as overwhelmingly woke and promoting a transgender ideology. Perhaps also worth noting is that Netflix employees apparently gave 251 times more to Democrats than Republicans in 2024. When it comes to the mantra, "Go woke, go broke," shareholders need only look at Netflix's past 12 months results, which as of May 27th, 2026, have Netflix apparently underperforming the S&P 500 by roughly 55 percentage points. The board's statement in opposition is perhaps most notable for its glaring failure to even mention sexualized content or transgender ideology. Beyond that, the claim that the requested report is unnecessary in light of existing oversight and disclosure practices belies the fact that it is precisely the board's existing oversight and disclosure practices that have led to the need for this proposal. Meanwhile, the claim that the proposal would inappropriately interfere with management's day-to-day operations at least borders on outright falsity because the proposal requests a report and could accordingly pass with 100% shareholder support and not one iota of management's day-to-day discretion would be constricted. Finally, the argument that the requested report could expose the company to unnecessary risk simply begs the question, what are you hiding? For all the foregoing reasons, and regardless of the outcome of today's vote, the board should, in accordance with proper exercise of its fiduciary oversight duties, prepare and issue the requested report. Operator, please play the pre-recorded presentation from Paul Chesser for proposal seven. I'm Paul Chesser of National Legal and Policy Center. We sponsor proposal seven, which asks the board to adopt cumulative voting for the election of directors. The case begins with the past six months. In December, Netflix announced an $82.7 billion agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, a transaction that required favorable regulatory determinations from the current presidential administration. In the middle of that pursuit, a sitting Netflix director used a podcast appearance to warn corporate America of an accountability agenda and subpoenas when her political allies returned to power. Within four days, the President of the United States demanded her removal from the board of Netflix. Netflix's Co-Chief Executive Officer was dismissive, answering that the president, “Likes to do a lot of things on social media.” Three days later, Warner Bros. Discovery accepted a competing bid from Paramount Skydance, and Netflix walked away. The deal Netflix had pursued for months was dead. The deeper concern is that this board's existing governance reforms did not flag the risk in advance, did not constrain the conduct in the moment, and has produced no visible accountability since. A scuttled corporate acquisition is not the only concern about Netflix's board. At the company's annual meeting last year, the lead independent director failed to receive a majority of votes cast for his own re-election. He tendered his resignation as the company's policy required. The board declined to honor the shareholder vote and reinstated him. That same director chairs the committee that produced the slate before you today. Of the 12 director nominees, four have Netflix executive employment history. This board is insulated from outside perspective. Cumulative voting, as Proposal seven calls for, addresses that. It would allow shareholders to aggregate their votes for a single candidate, creating the possibility of at least one director on this board who reflects perspectives the current nomination structure excludes. That director would not displace anyone on the slate. That director would sit alongside the existing board and surface the questions the existing board has shown it will not entertain on its own. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the OECD, the International Finance Corporation, and Institutional Shareholder Services all recognize cumulative voting as a legitimate governance mechanism. Netflix shareholders deserve no less. We ask shareholders to vote for Proposal seven. Thank you. That concludes the presentation of proposals. The board of directors recommends that stockholders vote for all directors, for Proposals two and three, and against Proposals four, five, six, and seven. If you previously voted via the internet, telephone, or mail, you don't need to take any further action. If you didn't previously vote or wish to change your vote, you may do so now by following the instructions on the virtual annual meeting platform. The polls for each matter to be voted at this meeting are now closed. No additional ballots, proxies, or votes, and no changes or revocations will be accepted. The final results will be tabulated by the Inspector of Elections and will be reported in a Form 8-K within four business days of today's meeting. The following leadership team members and directors are present at today's annual meeting. From the leadership team, we have Ted Sarandos, our Co-CEO, Greg Peters, our Co-CEO, David Hyman, our Chief Legal Officer, Spencer Neumann, our CFO, Bela Bajaria, our Chief Content Officer, and Clete Willems, our Chief Global Affairs Officer. From the board, we have directors Richard Barton, Jay Hoag, Leslie Kilgore, Ann Mather, Ellie Mertz, Ambassador Susan Rice, Brad Smith, and Anne Sweeney. Also present are Stephen Meyer from Ernst & Young LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, and Emma Stewart, Netflix's Director of ESG. Stephen will be available to answer any questions for our auditors. This concludes our annual stockholders meeting. There being no further business, I declare that the annual meeting of stockholders is hereby concluded. I'll now hand it over to Emma. Thank you, Reg. Since there were no relevant stockholder questions submitted for the auditors, we will now end this call. Thank you all for participating. Everyone else has left the call. This now concludes the meeting. Thank you for joining, and have a pleasant day.