A group of California consumers is taking their fight against the French luxury fashion house Hermès International to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the dismissal of their proposed antitrust class action that accused the brand of manipulating access to its world-renowned Birkin handbags.
The appeal comes after U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco dismissed the case last month, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately define the market or prove that Hermès exercised monopoly power over it. The plaintiffs argue that the lower court’s decision ignored the reality of Hermès’ dominance over the market for ultra-luxury handbags and its allegedly coercive sales practices.
The Heart of the Dispute: The “Qualification” Requirement
At the center of the legal battle is the so-called “qualification” system that Hermès allegedly uses to control who can purchase a Birkin bag—a highly coveted luxury item that often sells for tens of thousands of dollars and is considered one of the world’s most exclusive fashion accessories.
The plaintiffs claim that customers are not allowed to simply walk into a Hermès boutique and buy a Birkin. Instead, sales associates allegedly require shoppers to make substantial prior purchases of other Hermès products, such as scarves, jewelry, and home goods, before they are “invited” to buy a Birkin.
According to the complaint, this practice effectively forces consumers to buy additional goods they may not want, inflating Hermès’ profits and creating an unfair competitive advantage in violation of U.S. antitrust laws—specifically, the Sherman Act.
The plaintiffs allege that Hermès’ sales policy constitutes a form of “tying,” a practice in which a company requires customers to buy a secondary product as a condition of obtaining a primary product. Such arrangements can be illegal if the company holds significant power in the relevant market and if the tied sales harm competition.
Hermès’ Defense: Exclusivity Is Not Illegality
Hermès has strongly denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the Birkin bag operates within a competitive global market for luxury handbags that includes brands such as Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Dior, and Gucci. The company argues that its selective sales practices reflect brand management, not monopolistic behavior.
In his decision, Judge Donato sided with Hermès’ reasoning, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show that Hermès possessed market power in a properly defined market. He also noted that limiting sales or creating exclusivity around a luxury product does not, in itself, violate antitrust laws.
“Even if Hermès sells a limited number of Birkin bags and reserves access to select customers, that does not equate to unlawful anticompetitive conduct,” Donato wrote in his ruling. “The plaintiffs’ complaint does not establish that Hermès has the ability to control prices or exclude competitors.”
Donato further observed that luxury companies often restrict availability and pricing as part of their brand strategy, and that such tactics are common in the high-end fashion industry. This approach, he concluded, falls within the bounds of legitimate business discretion.
Plaintiffs’ Appeal: Redefining the Market
The plaintiffs, however, insist that Hermès’ dominance in the niche market for “ultra-luxury handbags”—specifically, the Birkin line—distinguishes this case from typical luxury retail practices. Their appeal contends that the lower court’s definition of the relevant market was overly broad, effectively dismissing the unique consumer demand and brand power associated with the Birkin.
They argue that Hermès exerts exclusive control over access to the Birkin, a bag so scarce and desirable that it has become an investment commodity, often reselling for double or triple its retail price on the secondary market. This, they claim, gives Hermès an effective monopoly over a specific segment of the luxury goods market.
“Consumers do not simply seek a luxury handbag—they seek the Birkin,” the appeal reportedly asserts, arguing that the brand’s deliberate scarcity and qualification system artificially inflate demand and constrain consumer choice.
Next Steps and Potential Impact
The outcome of the Ninth Circuit appeal could have broader implications for the luxury retail industry. If the appellate court revives the case, it could open the door to renewed scrutiny of exclusivity practices used by high-end fashion houses.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers, Joshua Haffner of Haffner Law and Shaun Setareh of Setareh Law Group, have emphasized that this case is not about punishing brand prestige but about ensuring fair consumer treatment. “Luxury should not mean manipulation,” Haffner said in earlier filings.
Hermès is represented by Christopher Yates, Belinda Lee, and Ashley Bauer of Latham & Watkins LLP, who have argued that the lawsuit seeks to penalize a business model based on exclusivity—one that is both lawful and essential to maintaining brand identity.
The case, Tina Cavalleri et al. v. Hermès International et al., was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-01707-JD). The Ninth Circuit’s eventual ruling will determine whether the plaintiffs can proceed with their claims or if Hermès’ victory in the district court stands.
Luxury Meets Legal Scrutiny
This case has captured public attention not only for its high-profile defendant but also for what it symbolizes—a collision between the allure of exclusivity and the principles of fair market competition. As luxury brands increasingly blend marketing scarcity with high consumer demand, courts may soon face new questions about when brand strategy crosses the line into anticompetitive behavior.
For now, Hermès’ legendary Birkin bag remains a status symbol—and a focal point of one of the most closely watched legal battles in the world of fashion and commerce.
Stay updated on the latest developments in legal news and business litigation at JDJournal. For those seeking new opportunities in the legal field, explore thousands of exclusive, verified openings today at LawCrossing.