Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices

[MonsoonBirkin]

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.

Leave it to a forum of H lovers for that to be the first thing on their minds, though . Sometimes I genuinely think people screen their comments from a lens of, "what if my SA ever finds out about this comment? What might happen?" Then they self-regulate, even when it's wholly not necessary.

It's like the Hermes version of Foucault's panopticon.

 

[Jktgal]

Having IP =/= having a monopoly.

Correct but Hermes have a monopoly over Hermes Birkin. What the plaintiffs want.
Not any birkin-like bag. Hermes won over the birkin nft's didn't they.

 

[TC1]

Okay, let’s say H goes back to a “waitlist” scenario. You cannot tell me SA’s don’t cherry pick from that list. Your name could be at the top for 4 years… but if you haven’t spent a dime in other areas, that’s where it’ll stay.

 

[acrowcounted]

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.

I firmly believe the case is nonsense and will be tossed out.

However, if it’s not dismissed and actually brings about any kind of change, I guarantee that change won’t be good for the consumer. If really forced to change their business model, I could see Hermes pulling all bag sales from the US, closing all business in the US, or even raising the price of the bags to their “prespend included” real feel price. At that point the forum will be filled with folks romanticizing the gone days of relationship building and complaining about high prices and having to travel to Europe to purchase. The idea that access would improve because of this is a naive fantasy.

 

[acrowcounted]

Okay, let’s say H goes back to a “waitlist” scenario. You cannot tell me SA’s don’t cherry pick from that list. Your name could be at the top for 4 years… but if you haven’t spent a dime in other areas, that’s where it’ll stay.

And then another lawsuit would follow. And this one would be easy to prove, you’d just need person X who “waitlisted” after you to demonstrably get the bag before you.

 

[S0nia]

I firmly believe the case is nonsense and will be tossed out.

However, if it’s not dismissed and actually brings about any kind of change, I guarantee that change won’t be good for the consumer. If really forced to change their business model, I could see Hermes pulling all bag sales from the US, closing all business in the US, or even raising the price of the bags to their “prespend included” real feel price. At that point the forum will be filled with folks romanticizing the gone days of relationship building and complaining about high prices and having to travel to Europe to purchase. The idea that access would improve because of this is a naive fantasy.

OMG, that would be sooooo awesome. People would finally be forced to move on to something else!
Hermes unboxing would finally be a thing of the past and the conversation would finally MOVE ON to other brands!

 

[acrowcounted]

OMG, that would be sooooo awesome. People would finally be forced to move on to something else!
Hermes unboxing would finally be a thing of the past and the conversation would finally MOVE ON to other brands!

Moving on seems like excellent advice...

 

[jag]

OMG, that would be sooooo awesome. People would finally be forced to move on to something else!
Hermes unboxing would finally be a thing of the past and the conversation would finally MOVE ON to other brands!

No one is stopping anyone from exploring other brands. We just choose to invest our money with a brand we truly love and enjoy. No one is holding the proverbial gun to our heads...

 

[canto bight]

"the majority of its clients to buy other things most of them don’t want in order to get quota bags"

and the evidence for that is ?

the assumption is that social media accurately reflects the purchasing demographic of Hermes
really . . ?

I’m sure that nothing here or on other social media would hold up in a court of law. However, that is not my point. There are countless posts on just this forum that point to this personal conclusion. Are we to just assume that our lovely fellow TPFers are lying?

 

[acrowcounted]

I’m sure that nothing here or on other social media would hold up in a court of law. However, that is not my point. There are countless posts on just this forum that point to this personal conclusion. Are we to just assume that our lovely fellow TPFers are lying?

Just because loyalty and good standing with the store is beneficial to receiving good service (including bag offers) doesn't mean it rises to the level of illegal "tying". I would argue that even if H came out and said "yep, we require clients to spend at least $16,938 before being considered for a Birkin bag purchase." that STILL wouldn't qualify as "tying" because they aren't saying "you must buy this specific item/items" before being considered.

I don't think anyone here is denying that a relationship with the store/SA is a valuable path to getting bag offers. People want to be able to see things in black and white, with numbers when possible, and so the client calculation and comparison of "prespend" has become a way for clients to tell each other in short hand about their relationship with the store. If I say "oh well yeah, my prespend with my SA for 2024 is already $175,000" everyone reading this will instantly have an idea of what kind of relationship I have with my store and my SA. That doesn't mean that Hermes illegally promised me anything for my $175k of purchases (outside of the items directly paid for) or that the sale of any of those items was contingent on anything else. Thats the issue that these plantiffs will have to prove, in writing I would imagine, to prove that "prespend" is a company policy and that it amounts to "tying" in an antitrust violation.

 

[2cello]

The people that do pre-spend love playing the game. Geez, you can feel the excitement reading the pre-spend threads. It’s like pokeman for wealthy fashionistas.

But *for me*, I’d rather Hermes just quadruple the price of the bags and sell first come first serve because I think the game is obnoxious.

 

[acrowcounted]

The people that do pre-spend love playing the game. Geez, you can feel the excitement reading the pre-spend threads. It’s like pokeman for wealthy fashionistas.

But *for me*, I’d rather Hermes just quadruple the price of the bags and sell first come first serve because I think the game is obnoxious.

Brand new at quadruple the price. https://janefinds.com/

 

[WhiteBus]

I’m sure that nothing here or on other social media would hold up in a court of law. However, that is not my point. There are countless posts on just this forum that point to this personal conclusion. Are we to just assume that our lovely fellow TPFers are lying?

Not at all

but my point was that social media is not populated by ALL Hermes clients
and we do not know what proportion of Hermes clients might contribute to social media
so the phrase 'the majority of its (Hermes') clients' is not categorically correct
you can make the conclusion with this qualification 'the majority of its clients who contribute to social media'

this might seem petty semantics - nonetheless important

 

[Grand Maven]

I firmly believe the case is nonsense and will be tossed out.

However, if it’s not dismissed and actually brings about any kind of change, I guarantee that change won’t be good for the consumer. If really forced to change their business model, I could see Hermes pulling all bag sales from the US, closing all business in the US, or even raising the price of the bags to their “prespend included” real feel price. At that point the forum will be filled with folks romanticizing the gone days of relationship building and complaining about high prices and having to travel to Europe to purchase. The idea that access would improve because of this is a naive fantasy.

I don't believe it's a strong case either.

If the plaintiffs win it will have a ripple effect to other luxury industries... watches and cars.

What big corporations and companies tend to do against smaller parties is play the long game, so they'll drag the claim for as long as they can until the plaintiffs cannot financially pursue their claim.

 

[jenayb]

Catching up and have two basic sentiments looking over the insight & comments here which have been fascinating to read; love different points of view and input...

1. I can't get past the fact that these are consenting adults who were not forced to purchase items in hopes of being offered a QB. The idea that anyone was forced into anything by H is absurd and laughable.

2. There seem to be two groups here which has been interesting for me to read - those who feel personally victimized by "prespend" and those who do not.

I agree with @acrowcounted that the lawsuit will likely go absolutely nowhere as any "evidence" is circumstantial at best, inadmissible in most cases.

Just my opinion of course, but the reality is that until we see company-wide circulated handbooks/whatever that clearly provide prespend structure which all SAs must adhere to, this will be thrown out and frankly is a waste of judicial resources (again, IMO) as @haute okole mentioned earlier in this thread. It reeks of entitlement and tantrum-throwing to me reading through the complaint.

Just because something is said to be "known" or an "open secret," whatever we want to call it, does not mean it will stand up in a court of law under a huge burden of proof without a doubt.