In a case that has captivated both the legal and luxury retail worlds, U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco dismissed a high-profile antitrust lawsuit brought against Hermès over the sales practices for its iconic Birkin handbag. The lawsuit, which took aim at the French luxury brand’s famously secretive and selective Birkin sales, claimed that Hermès unlawfully forced consumers to buy other non-Birkin items in order to be qualified for an offer to purchase the coveted bag. With Judge Donato’s September 2025 decision, the plaintiffs have appealed, and the case is now headed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Lawsuit: Claims and Core Arguments
At the center of the dispute are three California consumers who sought class action status, alleging Hermès violated U.S. antitrust law by enacting a qualification system: requiring customers to purchase scarves, jewelry, home goods, or shoes before being granted the chance to buy a Birkin. The plaintiffs argued this was an illegal tying arrangement, coercing additional purchases and unfairly restricting consumer access to the Birkin bag.
The lawsuit described Hermès’s Birkin sales as a hidden lottery system, claiming the bag’s legendary scarcity is artificially maintained to drive up demand, value, and a thriving resale market. Hermès and its sales representatives were aware that many customers encouraged to buy additional products would not actually receive a Birkin bag.
The Dismissal: Reasoning and Judicial Insight
Judge Donato rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, finding they failed to define a coherent market or show that Hermès had market power or harmed competition. He concluded that the proposed elitist luxury handbag market was too vague, relying on outdated reports and failing to show current market realities.
“It may be, as plaintiffs suggest, that Hermès reserves the Birkin bag for its highest paying customers, but that in itself is not an antitrust violation,” Donato wrote in his September 2025 ruling. He clarified that,
Businesses may choose how to operate as long as their practices do not restrain competition.
The decision dismissed federal claims with prejudice, ending those avenues for the plaintiffs, while declining to address state law allegations.
Hermès and Plaintiff Positions
In court filings, Hermès denied any wrongdoing, arguing that its Birkin bags are sold within a competitive luxury market and that exclusivity is fundamental to the brand’s identity, not a form of coercive or anti-competitive conduct.
“They can instead purchase the Birkin handbag separately on the secondary market,” Hermès argued, highlighting that Birkin access isn’t entirely foreclosed for would-be customers.
“Plaintiffs’ frustration in being unable to purchase additional Birkin handbags does not support an antitrust claim, let alone claims for false advertising, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation,” the company’s attorneys stated.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that these practices put pressure on consumers to make unnecessary purchases, and they believe the district court ignored the reality of Hermès’ dominance over the market for ultra-luxury handbags and its allegedly coercive sales practices.
The Pending Ninth Circuit Appeal
On October 7, 2025, the plaintiffs lodged a formal appeal with the Ninth Circuit in hopes of overturning Judge Donato’s dismissal. Their notice asserted that the district court failed to plausibly plead a relevant product market, market power, and injury to competition, all critical foundations for an antitrust case.
Legal experts suggest the appeal will hinge on whether the plaintiffs can more convincingly articulate a viable market and competitive harm, and if courts will view the qualification system as an unlawful tying arrangement or simply an exercise in luxury brand scarcity.
What’s Next
The ruling and appeal have broad implications for how luxury brands like Hermès, Chanel, and Louis Vuitton control and curate access to their most iconic products. The case tests the limits of exclusivity, tied sales, and what counts as anti-competitive behavior in a modern, aspirational market.
Until the Ninth Circuit rules, Hermès’s famously elusive Birkin buying practice remains intact, but the battle could still reshape legal precedent for how top luxury brands engage with their most in-demand offerings.
