Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices

[etoile de mer]

Who wants some popcorn? I made some for this thread!

 

[FrenchNewbie]

I am just astonished and honored that my post generated >10 pages of responses in less than 24 hours!

 

[jenayb]

I am just astonished and honored that my post generated >10 pages of responses in less than 24 hours!

Thinking it’s more the content versus your post.

 

[Veritybelle]

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.

Yes there has been a lot to catch up on lol! IMHO even if they can satisfy the relevant standard of proof that tying conduct occurs (doubtful?), what it then kind of boils down to is whether a whole lot of people voluntarily choosing to buy Orans when they really wanted Rockstuds has any relevant anti-competitive effect on the luxury shoe market. It’s all very juicy and exciting of course, and clearly the plaintiffs fall into your category of people who feel victimized by “pre-spend,” but I’m having trouble seeing how running this as a tying case can have been their most effective strategy.

 

[Swanky]

Captain Obvious here, discuss the topic, NOT the members please.

 

[katarzynaanna]

So what should H do if they don’t “offer” their limited supply of precious bags to loyal clients with a decent purchase history? Random allocation to walk-ins? First come first serve?

Increase the price to the point where supply meets demand. Which probably means at least doubling it. This is really as simple as this.

We tested it as whole countries in the last 50 years (see Poland in late 70s to early 90s, where a car price doubled if not quadrupled right after you left the dealer and could sell it on free market), we do know that only price increase works and everything else just degenerates things more.

 

[peggioka]

Interesting thread to read.
It would be interesting for the plaintiffs' attorneys to conduct a discovery on whether the birkin supply is truly limited and scarce as they made most of us to believe
For that reason, if the plaintiffs' attorneys can successfully get the judge to certify the class in this class action lawsuit, I think the case will be settled for $$$

 

[saskiamoet]

Oh they’re just mad that they couldn’t get a Birkin or a Kelly. Maybe they’re entitled rude ladies who are having a temper tantrum because they can’t get what they want.
When I was in college I worked at Saks 5th Ave in NYC at the La Mer counter. My co workers and I had our favorite super friendly clients, and we also detested several who would come in with rude and nasty attitudes. I would bet these ladies are not the friendliest or nicest. Does it suck to not be able to walk in and buy the bag you want? Of course. But we all know that’s how Hermes works, otherwise go shop somewhere else.

 

[scndlslv]

The fact is, a judge might be interested to take up the case for the precedent; this kind of shady practice occurs on the down low in luxury cars, in luxury watches etc.

Pretty sure linked sales are illegal. In France it is for sure. Hence those stupid signs "We do not practice what you and I full damn well know we practice. Please act accordingly."

Once something is illegal, I don't think you need to prove harm, you should just have to establish that it happened, i.e. the law was broken. Also, the law does not care about rich or poor. It applies to all. Breaking the law is for all, rich or poor. You do not get to kill, rape, steal, violate rights etc. just because you are rich or you are poor.

Saying a matter is frivolous just because the items in questions are expensive trinkets show poor understanding of legal matters which should concentrate on principles and standing. Why would a court rule on metabirkins then? How frivolous is that? Well, the issue here is IP, not the frivolity of the object in question.

Is Hermès breaking the law with pre-spend, yes or no. That is the issue.

Actually I pray the court takes up the case and Hermès comes in saying they do NOT practice pre-spend. What a firecracker that would be! All the dirty laundry would come right out for all to see!!

I don't know where you live, but the rich absolutely live by another set of rules and are often not held accountable for a lot of the illegal things you listed here. Hence, why these goofballs felt perfectly entitled to bring this goofy suit because their wealth often gives them access to things and they don't like being told "no."

Further adding to the silliness, is the fact that they could have easily purchased a BNIB Berking with their desired specs at any time on the resale market, but couldn't tolerate being shunned by H, because "don't you know who I am???" syndrome. They quite possible could have spent less going the reseller route than purchasing a bunch of stuff they, allegedly, didn't want.

And let me repeat, one OR both of these plaintiffs was able to purchase a B in store. They're literally suing because they didn't get more offers after the alleged prespend requirement.

I hope they lose and have to pay H's atty fees. That'll teach 'em! 🤣🤣🤣

 

[scndlslv]

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:

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

Yep, I remember when Ferrari sued and blackballed DJ Deadmau5 for painting his Ferrari in a manner they didn't like. This guy has a multi-million dollar car collection but he's been blackballed by Rari.

Why Ferrari Sued Deadmau5

Yes, you read that correctly. Ferrari sued Deadmau5. No, they didn’t sue him for how he spelled his name. No, he didn’t drop any songs dissing Ferrari. No, nobody crashed their Ferrari because that…

ideal.media

 

[themk888]

Who wants some popcorn? I made some for this thread!

Hahaha, we can all sit back and eat our popcorn watching how this will play out!

 

[SDC2003]

I don't know where you live, but the rich absolutely live by another set of rules and are often not held accountable for a lot of the illegal things you listed here. Hence, why these goofballs felt perfectly entitled to bring this goofy suit because their wealth often gives them access to things and they don't like being told "no."

Further adding to the silliness, is the fact that they could have easily purchased a BNIB Berking with their desired specs at any time on the resale market, but couldn't tolerate being shunned by H, because "don't you know who I am???" syndrome. They quite possible could have spent less going the reseller route than purchasing a bunch of stuff they, allegedly, didn't want.

And let me repeat, one OR both of these plaintiffs was able to purchase a B in store. They're literally suing because they didn't get more offers after the alleged prespend requirement.

I hope they lose and have to pay H's atty fees. That'll teach 'em! 🤣🤣🤣

Do we actually know whether these plaintiffs are wealthy? There seems to be this assumption they are but I did a quick google search and they looked to be your average middle class. Perhaps they tried for bags and the prespend just got to be too much and they got sick of being strung along. Most H shoppers are not the Uber rich. Who knows if they’re an entitled bunch or how they behaved in store. I’ve also seen enough people resell prespend on fb to know that just because you can buy a bkc doesn’t mean you’re rich. But even if they are does that mean we are to feel less sympathy for them if they had poor customer experiences? Why? Just because they have wealth?

 

[themk888]

 

[themk888]

 

[scndlslv]

Do we actually know whether these plaintiffs are wealthy? There seems to be this assumption they are but I did a quick google search and they looked to be your average middle class. Perhaps they tried for bags and the prespend just got to be too much and they got sick of being strung along. Most H shoppers are not the Uber rich. Who knows if they’re an entitled bunch or how they behaved in store. I’ve also seen enough people resell prespend on fb to know that just because you can buy a bkc doesn’t mean you’re rich. But even if they are does that mean we are to feel less sympathy for them if they had poor customer experiences? Why? Just because they have wealth?

Obviously we're ALL making a lot of assumptions based on the limited info. And "wealth" is subjective. Regardless, if they were playing the pre-spend game and actually buying Birkins, I think it's safe to assume they weren't broke. However one defines "wealth" clearly they were privileged AND entitled to even be in a position to think their "substantial" purchases (in their opinion) qualified them for MORE Bs over a myriad of customers playing by the pre-spend rules and waiting their turn.

I feel zero sympathy for them if they were not being discriminated against as a member of a protected class. As a member of a supposedly protected group, I've faced ACTUAL profililing and discrimination when "Shopping While Black." Even at Hermes. I've been blatantly ignored to the point that the store director, who just happened to witness it, approached me to discuss the situation and apologize profusely. I didn't say a word, she saw what happened, saw my face, and recognized it for what it was.

At the end of the day, they CHOSE to spend large sums of money on nonessential, luxury goods to get a HANDBAG. Bringing forth a lawsuit for THIS case speaks volumes.