The show cause notices issued by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) to seventeen major private school systems for allegedly forcing parents to buy branded supplies from exclusive authorised vendors highlight an issue that has assumed alarming dimensions. A CCP inquiry showed that parents were mandated to buy logo-bearing notebooks, workbooks, uniforms and other ancillary school products from exclusive school-authorised outlets. In several instances, schools sold compulsory ‘study packs’ through online portals or designated vendors, with students prohibited from using generic notebooks or uniforms from open market. The inquiry report concluded that many study packs were ‘up to 280pc more expensive than similar items available in open markets’.
What the CCP has revealed is tip of an iceberg as apart from major school systems the practice of forcing students to buy stationery and uniforms from designated outlets on inflated charges is in vogue almost in all private schools. These schools are minting money through unregulated exorbitant fees, so called annual charges and examination fee as well as commission and kickbacks in the form of sales through ‘tied market’. Apart from this they also heavily charge for arranged trips and recreational tours besides forcing students and their families to contribute for lavish functions having not much bearing on academic career of students. All this adds to financial burden of parents, who also have to allocate handsomely to cater for transport charges and pocket money of their children. The CCP report added that schools appointed exclusive vendors, foreclosing the market for thousands of small stationery and uniform sellers nationwide. The mandatory branded supplies and restrictive trading conditions violated sections 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 2010. High switching costs, such as limited school options, substantial transfer fees, and transportation constraints left parents with no viable alternative, enabling schools to enforce these practices without resistance. The CCP observed that these practices ‘restricted market access, harmed small retailers, and limited consumer choice across Pakistan’. It is quite obvious that the CCP has a limited role and that is why it has issued notices to only seventeen chains, leaving students of other schools at the mercy of their money-minting practices. While there is a possibility that CCP action might provide relief to those studying in these seventeen school systems, federal and provincial governments must take notice of overall situation and come out with a satisfactory plan to safeguard interests of students and their parents.
