But what if corporate tells each sa. Birkins and Kelly’s are your bonus bags. They are yours to give freely to any client you choose. Would that be linked selling. Bc obviously for MOST SAs, they’re favorite client will be their highest spending clients and then the mid spenders with the least attitudes and down the list goes. Centered around the SAs needs and likes and dislikes. Would most prioritize based on income generated? Should they be faulted?
Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices
- Thread starter FrenchNewbie
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
I would be careful with calling these bags "precious" and "limited supply". That's how we found ourselves in this situation we are in--people are coveting these bags and worshipping/protecting Hermes like some sort of deity. A Birkin or Kelly is NOT precious. It's a luxury item!
Do I enjoy driving my Mercedes S-Class, and admiring it, and keeping it pristine? Yes.
Is it precious? No.
Now, a one-of-kind Durer or da Vinci painting from the 15th century might be precious. A Tiffany 200ct. yellow diamond is precious.
Also, contrary to what Hermes would have you believe, these bags are not limited supply! They have mastered how the laws of [assumed limited] supply and demand impact us psychologically. If we think the bags precious/rare, then we'll go thru any lengths to acquire one. ---> a la the thousands of posts in the "Spend Threshold for B/K/C" and "Maintaining a H Relationship" threads.
At any given moment, you can walk into FSH and (if you are the right person) can purchase basically any model/leather/color bag you want. And you can't tell me that each boutique in the US really has a "limited supply" of bags. They have a healthy supply of bags sitting right in their stock rooms, waiting for the person they've deemed appropriate to purchase (i.e. have generated enough pre-spend).
We can all agree to disagree on the merits of the lawsuit, etc.; but the fact of the matter is, Hermes is playing some type of game in order to "allow" you to purchase a bag, whether we/they want to actually admit it or not! I am fine with playing the game, to a certain extent, [and that's my choice] but I'm not gonna sit here like an ostrich with my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist!
Last edited:
I'm actually surprised to see anyone denying it's existence when so many SAs will openly tell you that you must develop a relationship and you do so by regularly buying from different departments to show your loyalty. After all, if the practice isn't illegal, why deny its existence? I have been a willing participant in this and will continue to do so because I love my luxury goods from H! Is it frustrating to have to continue to prove my loyalty after 20 years as a customer, yes! (Hell, building this subforum with @Kellybag and @Greentea as a labor of love for H should count for something--I kid! 
). Am i a glutton for punishment? Probably. But I'm as guilty as any for playing the game.
). Am i a glutton for punishment? Probably. But I'm as guilty as any for playing the game.
So my question is how do you prove a SA is just selling things vs “tying” in a court of law.
The SA’s job is to sell things. They’re not just cashiers. It’s in their job description (figuratively speaking) to recommend products to sell things. So if a SA doesn’t have a quota bag to sell the client, but they say “oh have you seen our new collection of shoes”? Is that really tying or just a SA doing their job? Not being facetious. Like how would you be able to tease that out? And these conversations are happening millions of times across all H stores throughout the US, if not the world.
My two cents and this is gonna be spicy and unpopular. Just because you have the money to spend on something does not mean the retailer is obligated to sell that to you. That’s just life. And this applies to non luxury goods. For example, a car mechanic can and sometimes will turn away clients. Construction contractors may choose to not take on your job. Even if you have money. Flame me however you want, but that’s just life. And learning how to navigate that is a skill in a ruthless world is just what we as adults have to do….
The SA’s job is to sell things. They’re not just cashiers. It’s in their job description (figuratively speaking) to recommend products to sell things. So if a SA doesn’t have a quota bag to sell the client, but they say “oh have you seen our new collection of shoes”? Is that really tying or just a SA doing their job? Not being facetious. Like how would you be able to tease that out? And these conversations are happening millions of times across all H stores throughout the US, if not the world.
My two cents and this is gonna be spicy and unpopular. Just because you have the money to spend on something does not mean the retailer is obligated to sell that to you. That’s just life. And this applies to non luxury goods. For example, a car mechanic can and sometimes will turn away clients. Construction contractors may choose to not take on your job. Even if you have money. Flame me however you want, but that’s just life. And learning how to navigate that is a skill in a ruthless world is just what we as adults have to do….
Last edited:
This is such an interesting thread. I'm not an IP attorney, but I am a commercial litigator and typically defend corporations. Typos and grammar aside (I haven't read the petition), I see grammatical errors all the time in pleadings from major law firms but that doesn't make their case any less valid. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the plaintiffs' allegations either. The plaintiffs have the burden of proof and have a very tall hill to climb. But they will be allowed substantial discovery into Hermes corporate records, including who they offered bags to and how much the person spent. It may be circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless and likely admissible. I think the problem for Plaintiff's counsel is no jury is feeling sorry for anyone who can't purchase a five-figure bag. With that said, there may be reasons this case won't be heard by a jury, i.e. Hermes may not want to disclose its corporate documents. I have no doubt there will be protective orders in place that will prohibit the plaintiff's from discussing or disclosing Hermes confidential and proprietary information, i.e. customer lists, pricing, etc.
Most people are caught up in the fact that we are talking about Hermes and the ability to purchase an expensive bag. But what if we were talking about a more accessible company such as Target or Walmart, and they were tying high demand products (not necessarily necessities, but products most people come to think of as necessities, i.e. TVs, computers, etc.) to the sale of lesser demand products? I'm curious if people's opinions of the plaintiffs would change.
Keep in mind, these are first world problems and no bag is worth this sort of effort in my opinion. And "coercion"? Please....
Most people are caught up in the fact that we are talking about Hermes and the ability to purchase an expensive bag. But what if we were talking about a more accessible company such as Target or Walmart, and they were tying high demand products (not necessarily necessities, but products most people come to think of as necessities, i.e. TVs, computers, etc.) to the sale of lesser demand products? I'm curious if people's opinions of the plaintiffs would change.
Keep in mind, these are first world problems and no bag is worth this sort of effort in my opinion. And "coercion"? Please....
Few people having access to any bags doesn’t necessarily means they have unlimited inventory to satisfy every customer, so I think it is reasonable for H to determine who to do business with according to “prespent” (not denying it’s existence) when they have finite number of bags at any time.
I laughed out loud at this one:
This case is intriguing. But, my humble opinion here, good luck proving this in court. Hearsay doesn't count as evidence.
I've seen one SA flat out deny someone a bag, that customer leaves, and then the SA helps me with my purchase and explains why they didn't sell to that customer. (At bit of an over-share on their part I thought at the time.)
I was offered a special order my second visit to the store. Perhaps that may not happen if I went in there today.
Prespend? I get why they do this, because they can. And they are not held to sell something to someone just because someone wants it. I understand saving a special item for a known customer who wants it, not just someone who wants whatever is popular and then walk out and never to be seen again. Plus limited quantities. Should they make them offshore, in an assembly line factory to meet demand?
I will be watching for the news of this case, and what happens because of it. The soap opera unfolds. Someone cannot get a Birkin, pays heaps more for lawyers to make a point, the first world problem continues.
I'm mean. If I were a juror I'd show up carrying the Birkin I didn't need prespend to buy.....
This case is intriguing. But, my humble opinion here, good luck proving this in court. Hearsay doesn't count as evidence.
I've seen one SA flat out deny someone a bag, that customer leaves, and then the SA helps me with my purchase and explains why they didn't sell to that customer. (At bit of an over-share on their part I thought at the time.)
I was offered a special order my second visit to the store. Perhaps that may not happen if I went in there today.
Prespend? I get why they do this, because they can. And they are not held to sell something to someone just because someone wants it. I understand saving a special item for a known customer who wants it, not just someone who wants whatever is popular and then walk out and never to be seen again. Plus limited quantities. Should they make them offshore, in an assembly line factory to meet demand?
I will be watching for the news of this case, and what happens because of it. The soap opera unfolds. Someone cannot get a Birkin, pays heaps more for lawyers to make a point, the first world problem continues.
Wouldn't it only apply on a state/CA basis and not on a federal level? I'm not law-proficient, but it likely doesn't matter as I can't imagine this case going far...
So, what you're saying is that now is the time to go into a store and ask for a B w/o buying anything else?
... I'll volunteer as tribute and testify for H's case! /joke
I'm actually surprised to see anyone denying it's existence when so many SAs will openly tell you that you must develop a relationship and you do so by regularly buying from different departments to show your loyalty. After all, if the practice isn't illegal, why deny its existence? I have been a willing participant in this and will continue to do so because I love my luxury goods from H! Is it frustrating to have to continue to prove my loyalty after 20 years as a customer, yes! (Hell, building this subforum with @Kellybag and @Greentea as a labor of love for H should count for something--I kid!
The fact that after 20 years you still have to prove loyalty demonstrate that it is not about loyalty but about milking you pre-spend for each quota bag.
Loyalty is not something you should have to re-establish all the time. Once you've been deemed as loyal, you are loyal, unless you do something disloyal. Constantly proving your loyalty is about squeezing you $$.
Agreed, but a "pre-spend" may constitute "tying" (not necessarily unlawful, other elements have to be satisfied as well). I think the "finite" argument is a weak one. Most products (if not all) have finite quantities. When they sell out, they sell out. The better argument IMHO is the pre-spend (if it exists) is to weed out resellers who are more detrimental to consumers.
I'd agree with that. All the people grousing over having to establish a customer profile with Hermès don't seem to recognize that if they moved to a first come, first serve methodology, they'd really never get a chance at a Birkin because resellers would just snatch them up.
It's being brought in Federal court in CA. If they find only CA law applies, then only CA is affected, if they find Federal Law applies, it could apply to all of the US.Wouldn't it only apply on a state/CA basis and not on a federal level? I'm not law-proficient, but it likely doesn't matter as I can't imagine this case going far...
So, what you're saying is that now is the time to go into a store and ask for a B w/o buying anything else?
... I'll volunteer as tribute and testify for H's case! /joke
Is "pre-spend" in the room with us? 👀
About time.
There was a case in USA years ago about tying purchase of some drug (which the company has monopoly over) with some blood pressure monitor (which is a dime a dozen). I think the company lost. So this will be a test whether anti competition regulation applies to luxury goods - whether even the very rich needs ptotecting from welfare loss.
A good lawyer with an experienced economist can probably present a very convincing case.
There was a case in USA years ago about tying purchase of some drug (which the company has monopoly over) with some blood pressure monitor (which is a dime a dozen). I think the company lost. So this will be a test whether anti competition regulation applies to luxury goods - whether even the very rich needs ptotecting from welfare loss.
A good lawyer with an experienced economist can probably present a very convincing case.