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
Hermes will sooner settle with these two yahoos and pull out of all business in the United States before handing over these records to anyone (which would do nothing to prove “tying” anyway. The fact that shoppers at a store buy things, and some even buy bags, will be an uncontested fact as it’s not exactly newsbreaking.)
Sorry - should have read TFL's post before posting that question... just saw that now (after reading all the posts in this thread), thank you!
Hey, I'm in the minority. I didn't have to spend a lot to get offered a Birkin. I was offered without even asking and received 2 in seven months. I'd be a great witness for Hermes. My SA and the ASM told me I'm offered bags because I DON'T ask for them. When I was offered my first Birkin, my SA told me he was able to choose any client to offer it to. It was the end of the year and I think all the SAs were able to do that. He sort of implied that it was an exception to the rule that he could just offer the bag to who he liked. And he has always said to me and that he tells others that ask about pre-spend, "buy what you love."
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.
That case is very different. That’s a life saving medication and the only one on the market. This is a luxury good, with hundreds/thousands of different manufacturers and retailers….
"Just because you have the money to spend on something does not mean the retailer is obligated to sell that to you." No, but they cannot just deny selling people things without legitimate reason, either. That's just law.
Car mechanics can turn away clients if they're busy. They CANNOT turn away clients if they're Black. Construction contractors don't have to take on a job, but they cannot deny service to all Christians. Generally these examples are specific to discrimination and matters of protected classes--not alleged in this lawsuit--but there are other examples. While a person doesn't have to buy a company's medication, it IS against the law if that corporation only sells it if the consumer also buys medical devices (which was an actual tying example cited by the US govt).
Likewise, nobody here HAS to have a Birkin... but is it against the law if H is selling it contingent on buying their other stuff? That's the question here. I'm very interested in the answer. Considering legal cases set precedent for other industries, I think it's a little simplistic reducing this down to a bunch of privileged adults having a temper tantrum that they didn't get a Birkin... but a judge or jury may in fact agree.
I'm withholding an opinion on this one until it gets fleshed out in court (assuming it doesn't get tossed or settled. A distinct possibility). While I don't like H's business practice on quota bags, I have always respected their right to run their company as they see fit. Just as I place a lot of onus on the consumer to either grit their teeth and deal with it, or walk. People need to take responsibility with how they spend their money. But I'd absolutely reconsider my perspective on their corporate practices (and the brand as a whole) if what they're doing is legally wrong. I have a lot of respect for the US legal system, so I'm curious how this shakes out.
The court will decide. But H actually has monopoly of B, so it's relevant from this angle alone.
Yes, they absolutely can. As long as it’s not due to the customer being part of a protected class, any private business can deny service to anyone for any reason or for even no reason at all.
(If this is OT, mods sorry/please delete)
So, again as someone who is not law-proficient, how do "loyalty" programs that allow you to buy before anyone else play into this?
EX. Net-A-Porter's loyalty program? NAP is part of a public company, yet if you spend enough ($12k/year) you get early access to items before they go live on the site... Is it because someone could return the item and then NAP can sell it to the general/non-EIP public?
Understand that when I first began shopping with H, I did not have as much disposable income at that time. So I made smaller purchases here and there when I could (shawls, CDCs, more shawls, more CDCs lol). Funny enough, I was offered a birkin probably in 2007 or so without any prespend at the Wall Street Store. Over the last several years, I have spent fairly consistently and have definitely spent well over a birkin or so in my prespend over the last 3 years. Sadly, my SA left and I have recently started working with a new SA (who is a sweetheart although I have not been offered a QB yet). I am sure I will be offered a b/k in the future, or will simply go the reseller route if i have to.
Having IP =/= having a monopoly.
In fact, fashion has some of the most lax laws about what constitutes IP theft. Case in point: H&M's "not-a-Kelly"-bag:
But it seems tying has four conditions which require being met (though the Justice Dept also states "The Supreme Court, however, has never expressly adopted this formula, nor has it expressly delineated how a tie's procompetitive effects should affect its legality":
1) two separate products or services are involved,
(2) the sale or agreement to sell one product or service is conditioned on the purchase of another,
(3) the seller has sufficient economic power in the market for the tying product to enable it to restrain trade in the market for the tied product, and
(4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product is affected.
I struggle seeing how this case meets three and four. How is the handbag trade affected by H's practice? How is interstate commerce in handbags affected by this? I don't think trade or interstate commerce suffers because of H's prespend requirements. If there are any legal minds who can explain how the Plaintiffs can prove this I'm all ears. Or maybe they'll try to claim those clauses don't matter, but that's not an easy angle.
The Patek case has not had a decision as far as I can tell.
The plaintiffs won't get a Birkin from Hermes. They will be blacklisted whether they win or lose.
Ferrari blacklists customers for a lot of stuff:
www.hotcars.com
www.autoevolution.com
The plaintiffs won't get a Birkin from Hermes. They will be blacklisted whether they win or lose.
Ferrari blacklists customers for a lot of stuff:
13 Strict Rules Ferrari Owners Must Follow (And 10 The Employees Must Abide By)
Let's take a look at what it takes to own a Ferrari and what it takes to work at the home of the world-famous Prancing Horse.
www.hotcars.com
The Strict Rules of Ferrari Ownership: You Don’t Choose, Ferrari Chooses You
Buying a Ferrari is an entirely different experience because the carmaker is very picky about who is seen behind the wheel of its cars
www.autoevolution.com
“Private company” in this context means “non government”.
Ugh, yeah, everybody gets that!
At this point they probably already got one pre-loved or a fake or stopped caring.
Pretty sure they're doing it out of principle or to kick up a might sh*t storm as revenge.
That is really not a relevant point.
The more interesting question is how the H game will be played after this. Even if case is settled. Others will be looking to make a similar case (if only to get settlement). Something will eventually stick.