Birkin Bag Antitrust Lawsuit Tossed: Judge Finds No Case Against Hermès

The most coveted handbag in the world just held onto its aura of exclusivity—and a federal judge says that alone does not violate U.S. antitrust law. On May 10, a California judge permanently dismissed a proposed class action accusing French fashion house Hermès of forcing shoppers to purchase other high-priced merchandise before they could buy the iconic Birkin or Kelly bag.

What the shoppers claimed

Plaintiffs alleged a “no shoes, no Birkin” policy: sales associates would only offer a Birkin or Kelly after the customer spent thousands of dollars on scarves, jewelry, ready-to-wear, or even furniture. They argued this was an illegal tying arrangement—conditioning the sale of one product (the bag) on the purchase of separate items (the “tie-in” goods).

Why the court threw it out

• No market power shown. To prove unlawful tying, plaintiffs had to show Hermès wields market power in the “tying” product—in this case, ultra-luxury handbags. The judge said the complaint offered no reliable facts demonstrating Hermès could raise prices or restrict output in that market.
• The “kaleidoscope” problem. Plaintiffs tried to lump scarves, jewelry, home goods, apparel, and more into a single “tied-product” market. The court called it a “kaleidoscope of products,” finding no legal basis to treat such disparate goods as one market.
• Exclusivity ≠ illegality. Reserving scarce bags for loyal, high-spending customers may feel unfair, the judge noted, but exclusivity alone does not establish an antitrust violation without evidence of coercion that harms competition.

What the dismissal means

The ruling was “with prejudice,” meaning the plaintiffs cannot refile the same claims in federal court. For Hermès, it preserves a marketing strategy that fuels demand by keeping supply tight and access limited. For consumers, the decision underscores how difficult it is to turn luxury-brand gatekeeping into a viable antitrust case.

Key takeaways for shoppers and brands

1. Tying claims are tough to prove. Courts require clear definitions of both the tying and tied markets and evidence the seller can control prices or exclude competitors.
2. Luxury scarcity often survives scrutiny. Exclusivity strategies that create social cachet rarely run afoul of antitrust law unless they restrain competition in a broader market.
3. Documentation matters. Internal emails or explicit policies conditioning a purchase may sway future cases—but such evidence was lacking here.

Whether you view Hermès’ approach as genius marketing or gatekeeping, the legal bottom line is clear: as of now, no antitrust liability. If you believe you were harmed by a different tying arrangement, consult a qualified attorney to evaluate your specific facts.

This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.