In a bold move to revive their antitrust lawsuit against French luxury giant Hermès, U.S. consumers have filed an amended complaint, hoping to convince a skeptical judge of their claims that the company is unfairly forcing buyers to spend thousands of dollars on other products before allowing them to purchase one of its coveted Birkin bags.
The revised complaint, filed Friday by three California plaintiffs, introduces additional allegations and provides further details in response to Hermès’ request to dismiss the case, which has garnered significant attention.
The lawsuit contends that Hermès only offers customers with a “sufficient purchase history” the opportunity to buy the iconic Birkin bag, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. According to the plaintiffs, this practice violates U.S. antitrust law by tying the sale of other Hermès products, such as accessories and apparel, to the chance of obtaining a Birkin bag.
In the latest amendment, the plaintiffs also added claims of false advertising and fraud. They argue that Hermès and its sales staff are fully aware that many of those persuaded to purchase ancillary products are unlikely to ever receive a Birkin bag. This tactic, they allege, misleads consumers and artificially inflates the demand for other luxury items.
Hermès, in its response to the lawsuit, has maintained that the accusations are unfounded, calling them “far-fetched” and pointing to the company’s intense competition in the luxury market as evidence that it does not engage in anticompetitive behavior.
U.S. District Judge James Donato, who has previously expressed skepticism about the case, reiterated his doubts during a hearing in September. He indicated that Hermès is free to run its business as it sees fit, including setting the price and scarcity of its products.
“Hermès can run its business any way it wants,” said Judge Donato. “If it chooses to make five Birkin bags a year and charge a million dollars for them, it can do that.” He further stated, “The fact that a lot of your clients may not be able to get a Birkin bag is not a Hermès antitrust problem.”
In his comments, Judge Donato even suggested that Hermès’ business strategy could potentially benefit competition by opening the door for rival brands. “If Hermès is going to make you pay a fortune for their bag, they are leaving the ground open for every competitor to say, ‘Come on in and get our beautiful bag and you don’t have to buy $3,000 or $30,000 worth of belts.’”
The Birkin bag, named after actress and singer Jane Birkin, is one of the most sought-after and exclusive luxury items in the world. Known for its craftsmanship and high price tag, the Birkin bag is often seen as a status symbol. The scarcity of the bags, combined with Hermès’ selective sales process, only adds to their allure.
However, the plaintiffs argue that Hermès’ practice of tying access to the Birkin bag to the purchase of other products is not just a luxury marketing strategy, but an antitrust violation that harms consumers by artificially limiting access to the bags and driving up prices.
As the case progresses, the plaintiffs will aim to strengthen their argument, especially in light of Judge Donato’s apparent skepticism. The outcome could have broader implications for the luxury industry and the way high-end brands manage product exclusivity and pricing.
For Hermès, the lawsuit is a reminder of the complex relationship between scarcity, consumer demand, and legal regulation. While the company defends its right to run its business in a way that enhances its brand value, this lawsuit brings to the forefront key questions about the intersection of competition law and luxury goods marketing.
Read more:
What Are Antitrust Laws Intended to Achieve: A Quick Guide
Legal Battle Intensifies As Boies Schiller Rejects UWM’s Collusion Claims
Seoul Semiconductor Jumps 15% On European Court Ruling In Patent Dispute