ACM warns of powerful textbook publishers
The regulator says digital licences and paper books are too often sold together as a compulsory package.
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets says the Dutch market for schoolbooks is not working properly. The regulator is calling on publishers to stop compulsory bundles of digital licences and paper books, and warns that further investigation may follow.
Secondary schools spend around €280 million each year on digital and paper learning materials. According to the ACM, ThiemeMeulenhoff, Malmberg and Noordhoff have a large and stable market share in most subjects. Schools also switch suppliers only rarely when the price of a method rises.
As a result, the regulator sees insufficient pressure on publishers to improve prices, quality and reusability. According to the ACM, the prices of teaching materials have risen faster over the past seven years than those of comparable products. The authority also says that what is offered does not always match what schools need.
A key issue is what is known as licence–folio sales. Schools are offered a digital licence and a paper workbook or textbook as a single package. The ACM considers it particularly problematic that schools sometimes pay for components they do not need or that are difficult to replace.
Sustainability is also a factor. Many workbooks are no longer usable after one school year because pupils write in them. According to the ACM, the supply of reusable textbooks has almost disappeared in recent years, meaning that schools and pupils have to buy new materials every year.
The ACM has not established an infringement through this investigation. Tying is not automatically prohibited. That may be different when a publisher holds a dominant position and schools therefore effectively have no reasonable choice. If publishers do not adjust their sales practices, the regulator may launch a follow-up investigation.
According to the ACM, schools can organise more countervailing power themselves by purchasing jointly and switching methods more often. SIVON supports such cooperation. For parents and pupils, the call has no direct consequences for the time being: it is a recommendation, not an immediate ban.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The ACM considers the market for learning materials to be insufficiently well-functioning.
- Three major publishers hold a dominant position in many subjects.
- The regulator has issued recommendations but has not yet imposed a ban.
Left
Arguments Public education funding should not disappear into expensive, barely reusable packages; the government should enforce affordability, open standards and reuse.
Values Equal opportunities, public funds and sustainability.
Consequences Stricter rules could save schools money, but would also require investment in new learning materials.
Centre
Arguments Schools, publishers and the regulator should first improve transparency and freedom of choice, with intervention if voluntary adjustment fails.
Values Proportionality, quality and practical feasibility.
Consequences A phased approach limits disruption to existing methods and allows room for evidence.
Right
Arguments Publishers should retain room to develop digital methods; joint purchasing and competition may achieve more than new rules.
Values Entrepreneurship, innovation and schools' freedom of choice.
Consequences Overly burdensome regulation could slow investment in new teaching methods and digital tools.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The financial scale, market concentration and criticism of bundled sales have been confirmed by the ACM and NOS. The text makes clear that recommendations are not yet legal bans.
- confirmed Secondary schools spend around €280 million each year on digital and paper schoolbooks. — This figure is mentioned in the current NOS account of the ACM investigation. source
- confirmed ThiemeMeulenhoff, Malmberg and Noordhoff control most of the market. — NOS and the ACM describe the strong market position of the three largest providers. source
- confirmed The ACM says compulsory bundles of digital and paper materials should stop. — This is the central recommendation in the current reporting. source
- confirmed The ACM has not yet established an infringement. — NOS states that the investigation contains recommendations and was not aimed at infringements. source
Editor's note
The ACM's findings and figures have been confirmed. No ban or formal infringement has yet been established; possible next steps depend on new investigation.Sources
- Waarschuwing voor machtige uitgevers: schoolboeken te duur en slecht herbruikbaar — NOS
- ACM presenteert aanpak marktonderzoek digitale leermaterialen — Autoriteit Consument en Markt
- Evaluatie Wet Gratis Schoolboeken — Rijksoverheid
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „schoolboeken acm”
- De Telegraaf — „schoolboeken acm”
- AD — „schoolboeken acm”