According to more than forty student organisations across the United States, the Department of Justice (DoJ) should not allow a merger between McGraw-Hill and Cengage, as this will worsen the monopoly over the academic textbook publishing market.
Students claim that there are no more than four or five reputable publishing houses, which supply the whole market for academic textbooks. This means that if McGraw-Hill and Cengage merge, they will become the leading publishing house, and will probably have the monopoly over the market.
Other publishing houses include Pearson and Macmillan; however, their output will not be enough to compete with the power McGraw-Hill, and Cengage will have once combined in one entity.
Another significant problem which might arise from the merger is a monopoly over the online publishing market. While Pearson recently announced that they would be shifting towards an online approach to textbook publishing, Cengage is one of the experts in the field. Combined with McGraw-Hill’s paper textbook productivity, this will make it harder for other companies to be profitable.
Students disagree, but what will the Department of Justice do?
While students are welcomed to voice their opinion on the topic, the only authority with the power to ban the merger is the Department of Justice. The main concern for students is that if the two companies merge, they will be able to raise prices without considering the rest of the market.
Currently, McGraw-Hill and Cengage are in close communication with the DoJ, and the merger is expected to take place in 2020. This leaves enough time for the authority to review all documents and market forecasts, and decide whether this is an appropriate business decision in terms of a monopoly of the publishing market in the US.
