Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices

[horselove]

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.

This actually proves that the case is rubbish, because Hermes still doesn’t give people bags despite them spending 5:1. So there is no ‘tying’ 🤣

 

[Grand Maven]

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?

It sounds like they're aspirational buyers rather than the super-rich otherwise they'd have multiple Birkins.

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

Yh I heard about that. Ferrari has so many wild rules to not get blacklisted. Justin Beiber and Kim Kardashian were blacklisted by Ferrari.

 

[saugalady]

It sounds like they're aspirational buyers rather than the super-rich otherwise they'd have multiple Birkins.

I don't see anything wrong with being aspirational customers and that's where fairness comes in. Because one is not super wealthy, they shouldn't need to court a sales relationship excessively.

 

[haute okole]

All of the speculation about evidence is pointless. The Complaint is factually deficient on its face and as such fails on its merits. The Plaintiffs seek relief based on the Cartwright Act which prohibits any agreements between COMPETITORS to restrain trade, fix prices, production or reduce competition. Obviously, Plaintiffs have NO STANDING to sue under the Cartwright Act because they are not competitors of Hermes. The Plaintiffs also seek relief under the Sherman Act which prohibits business activity that is considered anti-competitive such as price fixing, monopolies and cartels. However, I am not an anti-trust litigator and I defer to those who may know more. I know Plaintiffs used some language in their complaint to try to resemble the Rolex case.

The Complaint however, patently falsely states that, “ … consumers can ONLY (my emphasis) purchase Birkin handbags from Defendants (Hermes) by physically going to a Hermes retail store… Birkin handbags are NEVER (my emphasis) publicly displayed for sale at Hermes retail store.”

I know this may be boring and nitpicky for most, but this is the real stuff that matters and not all the speculative hearsay you see on IG, can you subpoena influencers, etc. if it gets that far with such a pathetic pleading. Obviously, Hermes is not the ONLY place Plaintiffs can buy a Birkin. All one has to do is look on Facebook, Instagram, Sotheby’s etc to know Hermes is not monopolizing the sale of Birkins. The complaint is de facto false. The Plaintiffs and the attorneys should be embarrassed.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

5 lawyers? Why didn't they use that money to buy I do know, a couch or cashmere leather coats or fine jewelry?

A... couch?

 

[Swanky]

So many assumptions and sweeping generalities in this thread. If posts weren't being reported for offending others, I wouldn't have to read it... but here I am lol. Always shocking how broad a brush some folks paint others with.

 

[Muffin_Top]

A... couch?
View attachment 5970594

Yeah, an then magically a Birkeeng or two might be in stock. Even exotics...

 

[hermesgeek]

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.

My goodness, imagine if Hermès in the US switches to the lottery system just like Paris

Someone get Elle Woods pronto please!

 

[BirKineSS]

Imagine if the appointed judge actually one of H client and her wishlist has not been fullfill despite spending 2:1 or more… 🤭

 

[CTLover]

"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

I don't see anything wrong with being aspirational customers and that's where fairness comes in. Because one is not super wealthy, they shouldn't need to court a sales relationship excessively.

More likely, they felt entitled to bags, and the SA picked it up. I've been in stores and have often been shocked at how nasty, dismissive people can be to salespeople. I think beyond what you spend, it's about how much they like or dislike you.

 

[CTLover]

5 lawyers? Why didn't they use that money to buy I do know, a couch or cashmere leather coats or fine jewelry?

The lawyers are likely not being paid by the hour, but agreed to take part of whatever settlement, judgement is received.

 

[momasaurus]

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 $$.

I agree with this. We talk about art and craftsmanship and quality, but this is still just a business trying to make money.

 

[CTLover]

NYTimes article on the lawsuit: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/style/birkin-bag-hermes-lawsuit.html

I found this part of the article interesting:

"Douglas Hand, a lawyer in New York who works with fashion brands including Stella McCartney and Rag & Bone, said in a phone interview that the definition of “tying” was somewhat amorphous, and that the law allowed some room for goods to be sold in a bundle.

A judge, he said, is also more likely to rule that a sales practice violates the law when the item in question can be deemed a necessity. An example might include a drug company that predicates access to lifesaving medication only to those who buy it along with other products.

“There’s not as many reasons for why every consumer needs access to a Birkin bag or any specific luxury item,” Mr. Hand continued. “What the consumer wants out of that is access to class, access to exclusivity and access to a club that you gain entry into.”
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the distinction between bundling and illegal tying could be tricky to parse.

“That’s why the outcome will be very, very important to Rolex, Porsche and every luxury brand that has predicated access to the most exclusive items on purchasing less exclusive, unrelated items,” Mr. Hand said."

 

[loh]

NYTimes article on the lawsuit: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/style/birkin-bag-hermes-lawsuit.html

I found this part of the article interesting:

"Douglas Hand, a lawyer in New York who works with fashion brands including Stella McCartney and Rag & Bone, said in a phone interview that the definition of “tying” was somewhat amorphous, and that the law allowed some room for goods to be sold in a bundle.

A judge, he said, is also more likely to rule that a sales practice violates the law when the item in question can be deemed a necessity. An example might include a drug company that predicates access to lifesaving medication only to those who buy it along with other products.

“There’s not as many reasons for why every consumer needs access to a Birkin bag or any specific luxury item,” Mr. Hand continued. “What the consumer wants out of that is access to class, access to exclusivity and access to a club that you gain entry into.”
Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the distinction between bundling and illegal tying could be tricky to parse.

“That’s why the outcome will be very, very important to Rolex, Porsche and every luxury brand that has predicated access to the most exclusive items on purchasing less exclusive, unrelated items,” Mr. Hand said."

Thanks for sharing. I chuckled at the ending.

 

[bagsnshoess]

This should be very interesting.
At least with Rolex, you may have to wait, to buy a watch, but you don't have to buy 10,000 watch screws, lens cleaning cloths, and straps before you can qualify to buy a watch.

Can you imagine if Best buy said you had to buy a computer, Dvd movies, and gameing system before you could buy a tv?

😂😂😂😂