US courts rule that Hermès is right not to sell Birkin bags to everyone The French brand won the antitrust lawsuit that the Americans had filed against it.

Is it fair or unfair that Hermès doesn't sell its Birkin bags to everyone but only to its most loyal customers? According to the law, it is fair. Yesterday, as reported by The Fashion Law, a federal judge in California dismissed an antitrust lawsuit accusing the company of unfair practices related to the sale of its iconic Birkin handbags, filed against it by three Californian citizens. The ruling, issued by Judge James Donato, definitively rejected the claims, putting an end to the legal battle without the possibility of further amendments in federal court. The case, which was actually quite contrived, had drawn widespread attention for challenging the unwritten rule by which Hermès only allows its most loyal customers to purchase a Birkin, a bag for which the waiting list can last entire years. But what exactly had happened?

Why had they sued Hermès?

The whole story begins in March 2024, when three Californian citizens filed a class action lawsuit against Hermès. They claimed that the brand's practice of selling certain bags to a restricted selection of customers violated antitrust laws by requiring customers to demonstrate loyalty by buying numerous other Hermès items before being able to "access" the legendary Birkin or the Kelly. The prior purchases needed to prove brand loyalty were described by the plaintiffs as unnecessary prerequisites that artificially inflated the overall cost of obtaining a Birkin, which can already exceed $10,000 on its own. According to the lawsuit, this mechanism created a deceptive pricing structure, in which the retail price of the bag hid the real expense, namely the costs for these mandatory purchases. Beyond the antitrust claims under the federal Sherman Act, the complaint accused Hermès of misleading advertising and fraudulent practices.

It doesn't end there because the plaintiffs portrayed the company's sales tactics as a covert qualification process, which functioned like a sort of unofficial lottery after which, however, there wasn't even the certainty of being able to make the purchase. They argued that this not only increased revenues for Hermès, but also left many customers with unwanted items after "losing the lottery," so to speak. And already here, we add, the plaintiffs demonstrated, with their very American practical common sense, that they didn't understand that the Birkin purchase mechanism, perhaps the ultimate status symbol, is precisely designed to ensure that the brand's most precious icon ends up in the hands of a true enthusiast and not the first nouveau riche with enough money who walks into the store. If the Birkin is so legendary, it's precisely because you have to earn it.

Hermès contested the accusations from the start. The brand's lawyers argued instead that the lawsuit was based on narrow and artificial market definitions, exaggerating the brand's supposed dominance in the luxury handbag sector – a true fact being that demand for Hermès bags famously exceeds supply. They asserted that any perceived scarcity of Birkin bags was a legitimate business strategy and above all tied to that, and that the plaintiffs' complaints boiled down to mere dissatisfaction at not being able to buy one. Moreover, Hermès dismissed the fraud and misleading advertising claims as unfounded, insisting that their statements on product availability were neither deceptive nor specific enough to support the accusations. And, as The Fashion Law explains, this wasn't even the first time the court had examined the case: the complaint had already been dismissed for lack of sufficient details on exactly what market Hermès was "monopolizing" and thus on the very relevance of an antitrust lawsuit.

The plaintiffs did in fact revise their filings twice, in May and in October, adding claims about inflated effective prices and introducing new evidence for their thesis drawn from academic studies and industry reports on luxury consumption. But their efforts were in vain. Judge Donato sided decisively with Hermès, concluding that the three plaintiffs' complaint did not adequately establish the essential components needed for the case to proceed. He criticized the plaintiffs' attempt to define the market as that of "elite luxury handbags" using dated academic articles and broad reports on high-end consumption, stating that, even if Birkins represented a substantial portion (according to the plaintiffs 60% or 75%) of this alleged market, market share alone does not equate to market power. Without concrete facts demonstrating Hermès' ability to stifle competition or impose prices on the industry, the accusations did not hold up.

What does the ruling mean?

Given that, as mentioned, the three plaintiffs' lawsuit was entirely biased, as specified by the judge himself, the ruling is important because it definitively establishes that exclusivity in luxury goods is not automatically unlawful: practices like requiring customers to build a purchase history before accessing flagship products may not please everyone, may certainly cost a lot, but they are entirely valid. In light of the many amendments to the complaint made by the plaintiffs, Judge Donato dismissed the claims with prejudice, which means they cannot be refiled in federal court.

As for the remaining state law claims (in America there can be courts related to a single state or to the law of the entire federation), the court essentially said that any further pursuit will have to take place in California state courts. On a strictly legal level, for Hermès, the courtroom victory strengthens its ability to maintain control over distribution without fear of federal interventions, establishing a very important precedent for other luxury houses subject to similar scrutiny. Certainly, this was the last time they have a problem like this in America.