The Hermès Birkin lawsuit is an antitrust class action filed in March 2024 by three California shoppers who claimed the luxury house forced them to buy scarves, shoes, jewelry, and other merchandise before it would sell them a Birkin handbag. A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed the case with prejudice in September 2025, finding that Hermès does not hold the kind of market power antitrust law requires. The plaintiffs appealed, and the case is now being briefed before the Ninth Circuit.
What the Shoppers Said Hermès Was Doing
The complaint was filed on March 19, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Tina Cavalleri, Mark Glinoga, and Mengyao Yang. They sought to represent a nationwide class of anyone who, in the four years before filing, had purchased or been asked to purchase other Hermès products in order to buy a Birkin or Kelly bag.1ClassAction.org. Cavalleri et al. v. Hermès International et al. Complaint
According to the complaint, Birkin bags are never publicly displayed in Hermès stores and are not offered to every customer who walks in. Sales associates were said to be directed to reserve the bags for shoppers who had built a “sufficient purchase history” or “purchase profile,” which in practice meant spending tens of thousands of dollars on other merchandise first.2CNN. Hermès Birkin Bag Lawsuit
The plaintiffs pointed to the company’s commission structure as evidence of intent. Sales associates allegedly earn 3 percent on ancillary items like jewelry and home goods, 1.5 percent on non-Birkin handbags, and nothing at all on Birkin sales, giving staff a direct financial reason to steer customers toward other merchandise.3The Fashion Law. Hermès’ Scheme to Sell Birkins Is Anticompetitive, per New Lawsuit
Cavalleri said she spent tens of thousands of dollars on fragrances, hats, clothing, housewares, scarves, blankets, and shoes, only to be told when she asked about a Birkin in September 2022 that the bags go to “clients who have been consistent in supporting our business.” Glinoga said he tried repeatedly through 2023 and never got a bag. Yang, added in an amended complaint in October 2024, said he spent over $10,000 at the San Francisco store after being told the purchases were necessary to qualify.4Applied Antitrust. Cavalleri v. Hermès, Second Amended Complaint
The Antitrust Theory
The legal claim was “tying” under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. Tying happens when a seller uses power over one product to force buyers to purchase a separate product they might not want, or might prefer to buy elsewhere. The plaintiffs said Hermès leveraged the desirability and scarcity of the Birkin to coerce customers into spending thousands of dollars on ready-to-wear, scarves, belts, shoes, jewelry, fragrances, and home goods.5OPB. Hermès Birkin Bag Antitrust Violation
How Hermès Responded
Hermès denied requiring any pre-purchases. In its court filings the company stated plainly: “Hermès does not require a customer to purchase any other product before purchasing a Birkin or Kelly handbag.”6Applied Antitrust. Cavalleri v. Hermès, Hermès Opposition Brief It described its approach as “relationship-based retailing” rather than illegal tying.7The Fashion Law. Inside the Lawsuit Challenging Hermès’ Birkin Allocation Strategy
On the law, Hermès attacked the plaintiffs’ market definition, argued that per se tying rules should not apply in the luxury context (citing the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Epic Games v. Apple), and said that whatever social pressure customers might feel to buy other goods does not amount to antitrust coercion. It also pointed out that Birkins retail for far less than their resale value, which undercut any claim that the bag’s price was anticompetitively inflated.6Applied Antitrust. Cavalleri v. Hermès, Hermès Opposition Brief
Why the Judge Threw the Case Out
Judge James Donato dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend, finding the plaintiffs had failed to define a plausible product market, establish Hermès’s power within it, or identify a real antitrust injury.8ClassAction.org. Cavalleri v. Hermès, Dismissal Order The plaintiffs tried again in October 2024. On September 17, 2025, the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.9Reuters. Hermès Defeats Class Action Again Over Hard-to-Get Birkin Bags
The Market Definition Problem
The plaintiffs defined the relevant market as “elitist luxury handbags in the United States” and claimed Hermès held 60 to 75 percent of it. The court called that estimate “purely conclusory” and rested on outdated luxury reports.10Law Commentary. Hermès Faces Appeal Over Dismissed Birkin Bag Antitrust Lawsuit Worse, the plaintiffs contradicted themselves. Earlier filings acknowledged Hermès competes with Gucci, Prada, and Louis Vuitton, but the new “elitist” market excluded those brands and included only Hermès, Chanel, and Bottega Veneta. The studies the plaintiffs relied on described a single tiered U.S. luxury market and even listed Coach, Ralph Lauren, and Tommy Hilfiger among Hermès’s competitors.11Applied Antitrust. Cavalleri v. Hermès, Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
The Core Holding
Judge Donato’s central point was that exclusivity and scarcity by themselves are not antitrust violations. “It may be, as plaintiffs suggest, that Hermès reserves the Birkin bag for its highest-paying customers,” he wrote, “but that in itself is not an antitrust violation.”9Reuters. Hermès Defeats Class Action Again Over Hard-to-Get Birkin Bags Popularity is not market power. And the plaintiffs never showed that Hermès’s sales practices harmed competition in the market for scarves, shoes, jewelry, or any other allegedly tied product. No rival scarf makers or jewelers were said to have been squeezed out because of how Birkins are sold.12The Fashion Law. Hermès Beats Antitrust Lawsuit Over Alleged Birkin Bag Allocation Scheme
At an earlier hearing the judge had put the point bluntly: “If [Hermès] chooses to make five Birkin bags a year and charge a million to them, it can do that.”9Reuters. Hermès Defeats Class Action Again Over Hard-to-Get Birkin Bags
After dismissing the federal claims with prejudice, the court declined to keep jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those without prejudice.13The Fashion Law. The Birkin Battle Isn’t Over: Plaintiffs Appeal Hermès Antitrust Dismissal
The Ninth Circuit Appeal
Cavalleri and Glinoga filed a notice of appeal on October 7, 2025.13The Fashion Law. The Birkin Battle Isn’t Over: Plaintiffs Appeal Hermès Antitrust Dismissal Their opening brief, filed February 17, 2026, argued that the district court applied an “improperly demanding pleading standard” and asked the appeals court to revive the tying claims.7The Fashion Law. Inside the Lawsuit Challenging Hermès’ Birkin Allocation Strategy They called Hermès’s allocation model “quintessential anticompetitive conduct.”14Business Times. Hermès Buyers Ask US Appeals Court to Reinstate Birkin Handbag Class Action
Hermès filed its answering brief on May 20, 2026, urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm. The company argued the plaintiffs never identified a single competitor excluded by its conduct, never showed harm to competition in any secondary market, and misread tying law. Even if customers feel pressure to buy other goods to improve their standing with sales associates, Hermès said, that social dynamic is not antitrust coercion.15The Fashion Law. Hermès Urges Ninth Circuit to Reject Appeal Over Birkin Antitrust Lawsuit
No date for oral argument has been announced.
What the Case Could Mean for Luxury Retail
The lawsuit tested whether antitrust law can reach the allocation tactics luxury brands routinely use: cultivating purchase histories, keeping sought-after inventory out of sight, rewarding loyal spenders with access to limited goods. A ruling that those practices amount to illegal tying could have reshaped how the whole high-end sector sells.16UC Law Review. Is Luxury Exclusivity Illegal? Hermès Birkin Bag and the Alleged Tying Arrangement
The district court’s answer was that consumer frustration with luxury exclusivity is not the same as competitive harm. Antitrust law protects competition, not any individual shopper’s ability to buy a particular handbag. Whether the Ninth Circuit sees it the same way will set the terms of the debate going forward.