The Hermès Birkin Class Action Lawsuit Explained

The Birkin isn’t sold. It’s earned. That’s been Hermès‘ position for decades, and it’s exactly what’s now being challenged in court. A class action lawsuit is forcing one of fashion’s most powerful houses to defend something the luxury industry has long treated as strategy: the art of saying no. Here’s what the case means for how luxury brands sell, who they sell to, and whether exclusivity has a legal price tag.

The Core Issue: Is Hermès Forcing Sales?

At the heart of this legal battle is a practice known as “tying.” In simple terms, tying is when a seller forces a buyer to purchase one product (the “tied” product) in order to get another, more desirable product (the “tying” product). The lawsuit claims Hermès is doing exactly this: making customers buy other, less sought after items before they can even be considered for a Birkin bag.

The lawsuit, initially filed on March 19, 2024, in a California federal court, was brought by two customers, Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga, with a third, Mengyao Yang, later joining. They accuse Hermès International and its U.S. branch of violating antitrust law and rules designed to promote fair competition and prevent monopolies. Specifically, they cite the federal Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act.

These customers allege that Hermès has a system, often called “Birkin bait,” in which sales associates encourage, or even require, shoppers to build a significant “purchase history” by buying other Hermès products, such as shoes, scarves, jewelry, or home goods. Only after spending a substantial amount on these other items are customers supposedly given the chance to buy a Birkin bag. The lawsuit also points out that sales associates don’t earn commission on Birkin sales themselves, which, according to the plaintiffs, gives them a strong incentive to push customers towards other products to qualify for a Birkin.

The Lawsuit Begins

March 19, 2024: The Lawsuit Begins

The proposed class action lawsuit was first filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs claimed that Hermès was breaking federal antitrust laws (the Sherman Act) and California’s antitrust law (the Cartwright Act) by illegally “tying” the sale of its highly desired Birkin bags to the purchase of other, less exclusive Hermès products.

September 2024: A Judge’s Doubts and a Second Chance

After Hermès asked the court to throw out the initial complaint, U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed some doubts. He questioned whether the plaintiffs could truly argue that the Birkin bag constituted a distinct market, separate from all other luxury handbags. However, he gave the plaintiffs a chance to revise their complaint, allowing them to strengthen their legal arguments and provide more evidence to support their claims of illegal tying .

September 17, 2025: The Case is Dismissed (Again)

Even after the plaintiffs submitted a revised complaint, Judge Donato once again sided with Hermès, dismissing the lawsuit for a second time. This time, the dismissal of the “tying” claims was “with prejudice.” This legal term means that those specific claims cannot be brought back to court. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs hadn’t convincingly shown that Hermès had significant market power in a clearly defined market or that its sales practices actually harmed competition .

October 2025: Taking the Fight to a Higher Court

Unwilling to give up, the plaintiffs decided to appeal Judge Donato’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This move signaled their determination to challenge the lower court’s ruling and seek a fresh look at their lawsuit by a higher court.

February 18, 2026: The Appeal Continues

Most recently, the plaintiffs formally asked the Ninth Circuit to reinstate their class action lawsuit. They argue that the district court’s dismissal was too quick and that they should be allowed to gather more evidence (a process called “discovery”) to prove that Hermès’ sales tactics constitute an illegal tying arrangement. The outcome of this appeal is a crucial next step in this ongoing legal battle.

The Legal Rules vs. Shady Areas

This case highlights the tricky balance between a brand’s right to manage its image and sales, and the laws designed to ensure fair competition. While some legal rules are straightforward, applying them to the unique world of luxury fashion can get complicated.

The “Hard Laws” (The Clear Rules)

• The Sherman Antitrust Act (Section 2): This is a major federal law that makes it illegal for a company to unfairly gain or keep a monopoly (complete control) over a market. When it comes to tying, if a seller has enough economic power over a desirable product (like the Birkin) and uses that power to force buyers to purchase another product, it can be considered illegal .
• The Cartwright Act (California): This is California’s state level version of antitrust law. It often works similarly to the federal Sherman Act, but can sometimes be interpreted more broadly to protect against unfair business practices.

The “Grey Areas” (Where the Law Gets Tricky)

Hermès’ defense, and the reason the lawsuit was initially dismissed, largely comes down to how these clear laws are applied to a luxury brand. The court found the plaintiffs’ arguments fell short in several key areas:

1. Defining the Market: The biggest challenge for the plaintiffs was convincing the court that the Birkin bag is its own unique market. They argued that nothing else compares to a Birkin. However, courts generally don’t consider a single brand’s product as its own market, especially when other luxury handbags (from brands like Chanel or Louis Vuitton) exist. The judge agreed with Hermès that the relevant market is the broader “luxury handbag” market, where Hermès doesn’t have a monopoly .
2. Coercion vs. Cultivation: For a tying claim to succeed, there must be clear proof that customers were forced to buy other items. Hermès argued that they don’t force anyone; instead, they cultivate relationships with their best clients. Due to the Birkin’s extreme scarcity, they must be selective. This “relationship model” is a common, and usually legal, practice in the luxury world.
3. No Harm to Competition: Antitrust laws are designed to protect competition in the marketplace, not necessarily individual customers. The court found no evidence that Hermès’ sales practices harmed the overall market for other luxury accessories like scarves or shoes. In other words, other brands could still sell their scarves and shoes without being negatively impacted by Hermès’ Birkin strategy.

Arguments: Why the Lawsuit Was (or Wasn’t) Justified

This lawsuit sparks a debate about consumer rights, brand exclusivity, and the limits of market power in the luxury sector. Here’s a look at the core arguments from both sides:

Why the Lawsuit Was Justified (Plaintiffs’ Perspective)

1. Unfair Pressure on Consumers: The plaintiffs argue that Hermès leverages the immense desirability of the Birkin bag to pressure customers into buying products they might not otherwise want. This feels coercive and exploits the brand’s unique position.
2. Monopoly Power Over a Unique Product: For many, the Birkin is in a league of its own. The plaintiffs believe Hermès has a de facto monopoly over this specific, highly coveted item and is abusing that power to drive sales of other goods.
3. Lack of Transparency: The opaque nature of Birkin allocation, where there’s no public waiting list, and access is often based on an undisclosed spending threshold, creates an unfair and frustrating experience for consumers.
4. Violation of Antitrust Principles: The core legal argument is that Hermès’ practice fits the definition of an illegal tying arrangement, which is meant to prevent companies from unfairly dominating markets and stifling competition.

Why the Lawsuit Was Not Justified (Hermèss Perspective & Court’s Reasoning)

• No True Coercion: Hermès maintains that customers are not forced to buy anything. They choose to purchase other items to build a relationship with the brand, hoping to be offered a Birkin. This is a voluntary engagement, not a coercive one.
• Market Definition is Key: The court agreed with Hermès that the relevant market isn’t just “Birkin bags” but the broader “luxury handbag” market. In this larger market, Hermès doesn’t have a monopoly, and therefore, its practices don’t illegally restrict competition.
• Protecting Brand Exclusivity: Hermès argues that its selective sales process is essential to maintaining the Birkin’s allure and exclusivity, which is a fundamental part of its brand identity and value. This is a legitimate business strategy in the luxury sector.
• No Harm to Competition: The lawsuit failed to show that Hermèss practices actually harmed competition in the market for other luxury goods. Other brands continue to sell their accessories, and consumers have choices outside of Hermès .
• Right to Choose Customers: Companies generally have the right to choose their customers and how they sell their products, especially when dealing with limited edition or highly exclusive items, as long as they don’t violate antitrust laws by creating a true monopoly.

What Happens Next: The Appeal and Industry Impact

In September 2025, the initial lawsuit was dismissed “with prejudice,” meaning the specific tying claims couldn’t be refiled in that court. However, the legal battle isn’t over. As of February 2026, the case is now before the Ninth Circuit, a higher appeals court . The plaintiffs are hoping this court will overturn the previous decision, potentially forcing Hermès to reveal internal documents about its Birkin allocation strategy: a move the brand would likely want to avoid.

Despite winning the initial rounds in court, the lawsuit seems to have prompted some changes at Hermès. Industry reports suggest that pressure from the class action has led to a slight easing of its sales policies in the U.S. This includes:

• More Transparency: Customers might now receive more information in stores about how the Birkin allocation process works.
• Potentially Shorter Waits: There’s anecdotal evidence that some customers are experiencing shorter waiting times for highly sought after items.
• Stronger Legal Teams: Hermès has reportedly beefed up its legal and compliance teams to ensure its sales strategies stay within legal boundaries.

While Hermès hasn’t officially admitted to changing its practices due to the lawsuit, these shifts suggest that even a dismissed legal challenge can influence how luxury brands operate.

Future Outlook

The Hermès class action lawsuit is a fascinating example of how traditional legal frameworks grapple with the unique world of luxury fashion. While the plaintiffs have faced significant hurdles, their appeal keeps the conversation alive. This case highlights the inherent tension between a brand’s desire for exclusivity and the legal principles of fair competition. The Ninth Circuit’s decision will be closely watched, as it could either reaffirm the current legal landscape for luxury brands or set a new precedent that reshapes how these exclusive products are sold.