Commitment and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters In June 2022, the Attorney General for the State of Florida issued a subpoena to McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. as part of an investigation into alleged overcharges on instructional materials for use by public K-12 schools under the Florida False Claims Act. McGraw-Hill completed its production of documents and information in response to the subpoena in December 2022 and engaged in several meetings with the Attorney General’s office to articulate multiple factual and legal defenses to any prospective legal action by the Florida Attorney General. In January 2024, McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s former Florida sales representative was deposed by the Attorney General and provided testimony supporting McGraw-Hill Education Inc.’s position. On August 12, 2025, the State of Florida filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida against McGraw Hill, LLC and Savvas Learning Company, LLC, alleging that defendants violated the Florida False Claims Act by purportedly charging certain Florida school districts the full published price for instructional materials while offering the same instructional materials at lower prices and/or for free to others and not extending those pricing advantages to all purchasing Florida school districts during the adoption period (the “Florida Complaint”). The Florida Complaint further alleges that by purportedly disregarding Florida’s most-favored-nation pricing and mandatory free materials requirements, the defendants overcharged certain Florida school districts and withheld price reductions they were legally required to provide. On August 11, 2025, the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida unsealed a qui tam complaint (the “Florida Qui Tam Complaint”), which had remained under seal pursuant to Florida law from its filing in May 2022 until the State of Florida intervened in the Florida Qui Tam suit. Prior to August 12, 2025, the Company had no knowledge of the Florida Qui Tam Complaint. The Florida Qui Tam Complaint alleges similar claims against McGraw Hill, LLC and Savvas Learning Company, LLC as those advanced in the Florida Complaint. The Florida Complaint and the Florida Qui Tam Complaint seek treble damages arising from each alleged violation, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Relator in the Florida Qui Tam Complaint is solely entitled to a portion of any recovery made by the State of Florida in the litigation, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. McGraw Hill believes the Florida Complaint and the Florida Qui Tam Complaint are subject to legal challenge on multiple factual and legal grounds and on October 13, 2025, with Savvas Learning, filed a joint Motion to Dismiss the Florida Complaint. The Company and the State of Florida have submitted to the Court Memoranda of Law in support of their positions. Oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled to occur in Tallahassee in mid-February 2026. The Company is currently not able to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result and will continue to assess these conclusions as the matter progresses. On December 3, 2025, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois unsealed a qui tam complaint (the “Illinois Qui Tam Complaint”), which had remained under seal pursuant to Illinois law from its filing in July 2025. Prior to December 3, 2025, the Company had no knowledge of the Illinois Qui Tam Complaint. The Relator is the same Relator who filed the Florida Qui Tam Complaint. The Illinois Qui Tam Complaint alleges similar claims against McGraw Hill, LLC, Savvas Learning Company, LLC, Pearson Education, Inc. and HMH Education Company as those advanced in the Florida Complaint. The State of Illinois has elected not to intervene in the matter. The Illinois Qui Tam Complaint seeks treble damages arising from each alleged violation, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. McGraw Hill believes the Illinois Qui Tam Complaint is subject to legal challenge on multiple factual and legal grounds and currently intends with its co-defendants to file a joint Motion to Dismiss the Illinois Qui Tam Complaint. Given that other states have most favored nations pricing and mandatory free materials requirements for instructional materials, the Company believes it is possible that the Relator has filed under seal similar qui tam complaints in additional states. The Company is not currently aware of any such additional qui tam complaints. The Company is currently not able to predict the outcome of this matter (or other potential matters) or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result and will continue to assess these conclusions as the matters progress. In January 2021, and February 2021, two purported class actions were filed against McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, alleging that our refined methodology for calculating royalties breaches the terms of our author agreements and breaches McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs subsequently consolidated their claims in a single complaint. In May 2021, McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In January 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim but denied McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the breach of implied covenant claim. In September 2022, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their breach of implied covenant claim and in October 2022, filed an appeal on the Court’s granting of McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s motion to dismiss their breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In November 2024, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further adjudication on one element of the breach of contract claim. The issue of class certification remains open. Discovery in the District Court proceeding has concluded. The parties participated in mediation in early November 2025 to discuss the possibility of a mutually agreed settlement and did not reach a settlement. The Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the District Court on January 22, 2026. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result from the litigation and will continue to assess these conclusions as the litigation progresses. In July 2020, Achieve3000 filed a complaint against Beable Education Inc. (“Beable”) and its founder, Saki Dodelson, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Federal Action”) alleging, among other things, intellectual property/patent infringement, fraudulent inducement, unfair competition, theft of trade secret, tortious interference and breach of contract. Ms. Dodelson is the former CEO of Achieve3000. In October 2020, Beable and Dodelson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied in its entirety in May 2021. In July 2021, Beable and Dodelson filed a counterclaim asserting breach of an earlier settlement agreement with Achieve3000 and seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of the patent. Discovery in the Federal Action commenced. Beable and Dodelson subsequently filed for inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of the patent. In January 2023, the PTAB ruled the patent is invalid. Achieve3000 appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which affirmed the PTAB’s ruling in July 2024. Achieve3000 does not plan further appeals but filed an application in November 2023 to reissue the Patent, correcting errors to narrow and refine the claims to address the prior art that formed the basis of the PTAB’s ruling. In March 2025, after the extension of discovery deadlines in the Federal Action due to ongoing disputes, discovery resumed. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of the defendants' counter-claims or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result from the counter-claims and will continue to assess these conclusions as the litigation progresses. In the normal course of business both in the United States and abroad, the Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which may result in adverse judgments, damages, fines or penalties and is subject to inquiries and investigations by various governmental and regulatory agencies concerning compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, the Company cannot state with confidence what the timing, eventual outcome, or eventual judgment, damages, fines, penalties or other impact of these pending matters will be. The Company will accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based on its current knowledge, that the outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations currently pending should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

In June 2022, the Attorney General for the State of Florida issued a subpoena to McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. as part of an investigation into alleged overcharges on instructional materials for use by public K-12 schools under the Florida False Claims Act. McGraw-Hill completed its production of documents and information in response to the subpoena in December 2022 and engaged in several meetings with the Attorney General’s office to articulate multiple factual and legal defenses to any prospective legal action by the Florida Attorney General. In January 2024, McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s former Florida sales representative was deposed by the Attorney General and provided testimony supporting McGraw-Hill Education Inc.’s position. On August 12, 2025, the State of Florida filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida against McGraw Hill, LLC and Savvas Learning Company, LLC, alleging that defendants violated the Florida False Claims Act by purportedly charging certain Florida school districts the full published price for instructional materials while offering the same instructional materials at lower prices and/or for free to others and not extending those pricing advantages to all purchasing Florida school districts during the adoption period (the “Florida Complaint”). The Florida Complaint further alleges that by purportedly disregarding Florida’s most-favored-nation pricing and mandatory free materials requirements, the defendants overcharged certain Florida school districts and withheld price reductions they were legally required to provide. On August 11, 2025, the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida unsealed a qui tam complaint (the “Florida Qui Tam Complaint”), which had remained under seal pursuant to Florida law from its filing in May 2022 until the State of Florida intervened in the Florida Qui Tam suit. Prior to August 12, 2025, the Company had no knowledge of the Florida Qui Tam Complaint. The Florida Qui Tam Complaint alleges similar claims against McGraw Hill, LLC and Savvas Learning Company, LLC as those advanced in the Florida Complaint. The Florida Complaint and the Florida Qui Tam Complaint seek treble damages arising from each alleged violation, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Relator in the Florida Qui Tam Complaint is solely entitled to a portion of any recovery made by the State of Florida in the litigation, in addition to reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. McGraw Hill believes the Florida Complaint and the Florida Qui Tam Complaint are subject to legal challenge on multiple factual and legal grounds and on October 13, 2025, with Savvas Learning, filed a joint Motion to Dismiss the Florida Complaint. The Company and the State of Florida have submitted to the Court Memoranda of Law in support of their positions. Oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled to occur in Tallahassee in mid-February 2026. The Company is currently not able to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result and will continue to assess these conclusions as the matter progresses.

On December 3, 2025, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois unsealed a qui tam complaint (the “Illinois Qui Tam Complaint”), which had remained under seal pursuant to Illinois law from its filing in July 2025. Prior to December 3, 2025, the Company had no knowledge of the Illinois Qui Tam Complaint. The Relator is the same Relator who filed the Florida Qui Tam Complaint. The Illinois Qui Tam Complaint alleges similar claims against McGraw Hill, LLC, Savvas Learning Company, LLC, Pearson Education, Inc. and HMH Education Company as those advanced in the Florida Complaint. The State of Illinois has elected not to intervene in the matter. The Illinois Qui Tam Complaint seeks treble damages arising from each alleged violation, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. McGraw Hill believes the Illinois Qui Tam Complaint is subject to legal challenge on multiple factual and legal grounds and currently intends with its co-defendants to file a joint Motion to Dismiss the Illinois Qui Tam Complaint. Given that other states have most favored nations pricing and mandatory free materials requirements for instructional materials, the Company believes it is possible that the Relator has filed under seal similar qui tam complaints in additional states. The Company is not currently aware of any such additional qui tam complaints. The Company is currently not able to predict the outcome of this matter (or other potential matters) or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result and will continue to assess these conclusions as the matters progress.

In January 2021, and February 2021, two purported class actions were filed against McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, alleging that our refined methodology for calculating royalties breaches the terms of our author agreements and breaches McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs subsequently consolidated their claims in a single complaint. In May 2021, McGraw-Hill Education, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. In January 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim but denied McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the breach of implied covenant claim. In September 2022, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their breach of implied covenant claim and in October 2022, filed an appeal on the Court’s granting of McGraw-Hill Education, Inc.’s motion to dismiss their breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In November 2024, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further adjudication on one element of the breach of contract claim. The issue of class certification remains open. Discovery in the District Court proceeding has concluded. The parties participated in mediation in early November 2025 to discuss the possibility of a mutually agreed settlement and did not reach a settlement. The Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the District Court on January 22, 2026. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result from the litigation and will continue to assess these conclusions as the litigation progresses.

In July 2020, Achieve3000 filed a complaint against Beable Education Inc. (“Beable”) and its founder, Saki Dodelson, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Federal Action”) alleging, among other things, intellectual property/patent infringement, fraudulent inducement, unfair competition, theft of trade secret, tortious interference and breach of contract. Ms. Dodelson is the former CEO of Achieve3000. In October 2020, Beable and Dodelson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied in its entirety in May 2021. In July 2021, Beable and Dodelson filed a counterclaim asserting breach of an earlier settlement agreement with Achieve3000 and seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of the patent. Discovery in the Federal Action commenced. Beable and Dodelson subsequently filed for inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of the patent. In January 2023, the PTAB ruled the patent is invalid. Achieve3000 appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which affirmed the PTAB’s ruling in July 2024. Achieve3000 does not plan further appeals but filed an application in November 2023 to reissue the Patent, correcting errors to narrow and refine the claims to address the prior art that formed the basis of the PTAB’s ruling. In March 2025, after the extension of discovery deadlines in the Federal Action due to ongoing disputes, discovery resumed. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of the defendants' counter-claims or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result from the counter-claims and will continue to assess these conclusions as the litigation progresses.

In the normal course of business both in the United States and abroad, the Company is a defendant in various lawsuits and legal proceedings which may result in adverse judgments, damages, fines or penalties and is subject to inquiries and investigations by various governmental and regulatory agencies concerning compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, the Company cannot state with confidence what the timing, eventual outcome, or eventual judgment, damages, fines, penalties or other impact of these pending matters will be. The Company will accrue a liability for such matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based on its current knowledge, that the outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations currently pending should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.