Controversy Surrounds Purchase of Hermès Birkin Bags

A lawsuit filed against the French luxury house Hermès in California has brought to light the exclusive customer criteria attached to the purchase of the iconic Birkin handbags, leading to allegations of antitrust law violations. The plaintiffs, Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga from California, have accused Hermès of requiring customers to have a ‘sufficient purchase history’ with the brand in order to buy the highly coveted Birkin bags.

According to the lawsuit filed in San Francisco, Hermès has been accused of ‘tying’ the sale of the Birkin bags to the purchase of other products, thus exploiting their market power. The plaintiffs claim that Hermès sales associates coerce customers into buying additional Hermès items like shoes, scarves, and jewelry, before granting them access to the sought-after Birkin handbags.

The Birkin handbags, often associated with luxury and wealth, are meticulously handcrafted in France from the finest leather and can cost anywhere from thousands to over a hundred thousand dollars. Despite their high price tag and exclusivity, the Birkin bags are not openly displayed for sale in Hermès retail stores and are only shown to selected customers in private rooms.

Cavalleri, one of the plaintiffs, revealed that she had spent significant amounts on ancillary Hermès products to qualify for the purchase of a Birkin bag. However, upon inquiring about buying another Birkin in 2022, she was informed that the bags were reserved for clients who had consistently supported the brand, thus requiring her to make more purchases to be considered eligible.

Glinoga, the other plaintiff, was advised by a sales associate that he needed to buy additional items if he wanted a chance to purchase a Birkin bag. Despite multiple attempts, he was unable to acquire the coveted handbag without purchasing other Hermès products.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status for U.S. consumers who have faced similar restrictions by Hermès and are demanding monetary damages and a court order to prevent the brand from engaging in what they describe as anti-competitive practices.