Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices

[880]

Here is an aspect that has not been discussed so far, I do not think. How are they going to identify the affected class? I have gotten random $5 checks from Facebook and Six Flags after some class action settlements as I was identified as a member of class because I was a user/customer. Here they are trying to identify someone who wants an item and someone who does not have something. At this point anyone- literally the entire population of this planet- can claim to be affected. Even those who already own a bag can claim that they could not get another one or that they had to pre-spend. It is Hermes vs the Earth bwahahah. Actually, vs the Universe. I bet there are some Aliens who wanted the bag and couldn't get it. They were forced to buy men's clothing from the Robot line but they were not allowed to wear anything that had pictures of their elders as part of the design. (Funny? Too much? I am not sure about the last line)

Agree. H versus the universe lol. No one is arguing that a prespend metric of some kind may be indicative of a loyal client. But those that simply conflate prespend with coercion — or forced to buy the robot line lol — miss the mark.

 

[haute okole]

I personally can honestly say that I have never been encouraged to buy more to get a bag by my Hermes SA or anyone affiliated with Hermes. I have a 10+ year relationship with my local Hermes boutique, never been lucky at FSH, but own several QBs from my local, US based store. I am curious if people have bought more because they have heard from others, including reading TPF, that prespend was a prerequisite to obtaining a desired QB? How many people have purchased more because they have heard prespend was required, not directly from someone employed by Hermes, but from others ie., other Hermes consumers, blogs or forum readers but not directly from Hermes?

 

[Neeya]

You can love and admire a brand and its craftsmanship, carry it almost exclusively, and be passionate about it but also be wholly unwilling to participate in this particular type of capitalism and consumerism. Bringing a lawsuit feels so very trivial. Rather, just go where your ethics lead you, the options are numerous and your time and money is better used elsewhere. I think there is an undeniable reality that people like to sugarcoat, which is, no matter how the company operates, no matter what your relationship with your store or SA is, and no matter how long you've been purchasing from them - this is a business and their goal is to make as much money as humanly possible. So, make your decisions based on your own morality/ethics.

1. If you want the privilege/clout of being offered an item after paying your "dues" to a wealthy company that ultimately doesn't really care about you, then you play by the well-known, unspoken, but somewhat clearly outlined rules you can find if you do any amount of due diligence on the object you want so badly (or face a fun surprise in person, either way).

2. Do you want the experience of being offered a bag after long-term patronage and loyalty to a wealthy company because patience/enjoyment/admiration/whatever we tell ourselves? Then you can give it a go and hope to be rewarded; experiences will vary. Enjoy the journey, as we say!

3. Are you disinterested in rabid consumerism in order to be offered an object by a wealthy company? Are you disinterested in pledging long-term loyalty to a wealthy entity that doesn't actually care about you because it's a business in the hope of being rewarded and you're doing it because patience/enjoyment/admiration/etc.? Then buy secondhand.

4. Are you disinterested in rabid consumerism, pledging loyalty to a wealthy entity that doesn't actually care about you because it's a business and you're environmentally conscious and find it all morally and ethically questionable how much we consume anyway but can't escape your love of fashion? Then buy vintage secondhand.

5. Hate consumerism and capitalism but begrudgingly accept it as part of life and shop for pleasure/fulfillment? Then internally torture yourself over every purchase and contend with the thought of man I could have done something pretty noble in my community with $7,000

6. Hate consumerism and capitalism, period? Don't participate, period; also, how did you end up on this forum

Full spectrum, lots of options not listed, all sorts of humans

Patronage at the Hermes store pays for the experience of exclusivity, which means that if you're purchasing from Hermes at all, you're already doing something hyper-exclusive to be in that monetary range. And you're further paying on top of that to obtain even more exclusivity in pursuit of a bag. A BAG.

In the end, no matter how you argue it, it's just - things -. In the grand scheme of life, it's so insignificant. The playing field isn't level to begin with; it's not in the nature of the beast for it to be level, and no matter what, if you're able to purchase anything Hermes, you have a privilege that the *vast* majority of the world will never have, let alone register on their radar of relevant life issues.

TLDR, I plead with much of the world to go touch grass. And find other better ways to show real, actual inequity in the world.

 

[880]

I personally can honestly say that I have never been encouraged to buy more to get a bag by my Hermes SA or anyone affiliated with Hermes. I have a 10+ year relationship with my local Hermes boutique, never been lucky at FSH, but own several QBs from my local, US based store. I am curious if people have bought more because they have heard from others, including reading TPF, that prespend was a prerequisite to obtaining a desired QB? How many people have purchased more because they have heard prespend was required, not directly from someone employed by Hermes, but from others, other Hermes consumers, blogs or forum readers but not directly from Hermes?

Agree 100% with you and with @Neeya above. I can just see plaintiffs twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to conflate reading TPF at home with a coercion by the boutique. They cannot accept that with a big brand, for profit, luxury business, the playing field isn’t level for everyone in this rarified group.

Plaintiff A is clearly unhappy she cannot get a second Birkin upon request even though it appears she stopped shopping after obtaining the first. Another poster in this thread wrote that once ‘loyalty’ has been established, it should not have to be renewed (presumably in defense of the plaintiff, idk). If we carried this kind of logic to its natural conclusion, Hermes would be obligated to sell former clients a QB a year upon request indefinitely. More than one SA and SM has spoken to me about fairness which they define as allowing those who don’t have a bag to get a shot. This would be one of many explanations why even those clients who do love the brand and who do spend have to wait (esp. if they have bags already). It may also be why some newcomers to the brand have reported surprisingly greater luck. Most likely, circumstances differ depending on the individual situation.

plaintiff B seems to have simply gone to Hermes multiple times to ask for a QB without demonstrating any interest, never mind purchasing, any other items. He’s a newcomer to the brand who isn’t interested beyond the single transaction. Why would any business want a one time client like him. Why should hermes be obligated to sell to him, when there are, yes, more deserving clients (clients who have the potential and inclination to grow) still waiting.

Those who complain that they are coerced to buy ancillary product should simply not take out their wallets in the Boutique.

 

[textilegirl]

Hermes is its own gatekeeper. And you can’t get a reservation at Rao’s either, but the sauce is available at the grocery store so sue them.

(Rao’s is in NYC but insert any hard to get dinner reservation in your location.)

 

[cravin]

I wonder whether the two plaintiffs are secretly Hermes’ marketing department employees. I have never seen nor heard “Hermes” so much on the radio and TV news.

 

[bagsnshoess]

You can love and admire a brand and its craftsmanship, carry it almost exclusively, and be passionate about it but also be wholly unwilling to participate in this particular type of capitalism and consumerism. Bringing a lawsuit feels so very trivial. Rather, just go where your ethics lead you, the options are numerous and your time and money is better used elsewhere. I think there is an undeniable reality that people like to sugarcoat, which is, no matter how the company operates, no matter what your relationship with your store or SA is, and no matter how long you've been purchasing from them - this is a business and their goal is to make as much money as humanly possible. So, make your decisions based on your own morality/ethics.

1. If you want the privilege/clout of being offered an item after paying your "dues" to a wealthy company that ultimately doesn't really care about you, then you play by the well-known, unspoken, but somewhat clearly outlined rules you can find if you do any amount of due diligence on the object you want so badly (or face a fun surprise in person, either way).

2. Do you want the experience of being offered a bag after long-term patronage and loyalty to a wealthy company because patience/enjoyment/admiration/whatever we tell ourselves? Then you can give it a go and hope to be rewarded; experiences will vary. Enjoy the journey, as we say!

3. Are you disinterested in rabid consumerism in order to be offered an object by a wealthy company? Are you disinterested in pledging long-term loyalty to a wealthy entity that doesn't actually care about you because it's a business in the hope of being rewarded and you're doing it because patience/enjoyment/admiration/etc.? Then buy secondhand.

4. Are you disinterested in rabid consumerism, pledging loyalty to a wealthy entity that doesn't actually care about you because it's a business and you're environmentally conscious and find it all morally and ethically questionable how much we consume anyway but can't escape your love of fashion? Then buy vintage secondhand.

5. Hate consumerism and capitalism but begrudgingly accept it as part of life and shop for pleasure/fulfillment? Then internally torture yourself over every purchase and contend with the thought of man I could have done something pretty noble in my community with $7,000

6. Hate consumerism and capitalism, period? Don't participate, period; also, how did you end up on this forum

Full spectrum, lots of options not listed, all sorts of humans

Patronage at the Hermes store pays for the experience of exclusivity, which means that if you're purchasing from Hermes at all, you're already doing something hyper-exclusive to be in that monetary range. And you're further paying on top of that to obtain even more exclusivity in pursuit of a bag. A BAG.

In the end, no matter how you argue it, it's just - things -. In the grand scheme of life, it's so insignificant. The playing field isn't level to begin with; it's not in the nature of the beast for it to be level, and no matter what, if you're able to purchase anything Hermes, you have a privilege that the *vast* majority of the world will never have, let alone register on their radar of relevant life issues.

TLDR, I plead with much of the world to go touch grass. And find other better ways to show real, actual inequity in the world.

Agree with most, but I also do wanna point out its not just about feeling 'rewarded' with an expensive bag from a company that doesn't care about you cause 90% of companies out there actually don't lol...
Please don't come at me for this I'm in no way a reseller I don't even own any BKCs but hear me out.. although if you have ZERO interest in the actual brand this may apply to you but if you genuinely are interested I don't see anything wrong with potentially being swayed to buy a tea cup from Hermes vs one from Dior and eventually get being offered a BKC, it is more comforting to know that you're spending money on something that should you ever NEED to sell (along with other things) it will still maintain its value and honestly cover your initial purchases too depending on what bag you have and when you sell - at least for me. And the truth is this wouldn't be the case if Hermes was selling bags to everyone walking into any boutique.

 

[protein_]

What is next? Suing Tesla because I cannot buy a CyberTruck directly from Tesla? Sure, I can buy one from a reseller now at 4x the price, but I don’t want too. Plaintiffs may get their Birkin one day, but they are too impatient and entitled to wait their turn.

I understand that you're using an analogy, but...

Tesla made the CyberTruck waitlist/pay a deposit if you were serious about owning one.

DH got on the waitlist when it was first announced in 2019. It required a nominal deposit of ~$100 (at the time) to join the list. He happily paid it, just in case he wanted the chance to buy one.

He was offered the truck in December, but we were both like it's a ridiculous car, so we passed.

When CyberTruck was released last year, part of the purchase agreement basically said that you wouldn't resell it and only sell it back to Tesla if there was an actual issue with the vehicle (they since removed that clause).

Anyone could have the opportunity to buy the CyberTruck, directly from Tesla, if they want to - as it is a waitlist and eventually, they'll get to the end of the waitlist.

VS. Not everyone has the opportunity to buy a QB directly from H, unless, well we know the story...

If H said that anyone could buy a QB from resale, they would essentially endorse the secondary market, which might not align with the brand (imagine if they did and a fake slipped through?).

Similar to how Chanel sued WGACA, it doesn't feel like a luxury house thing to do... especially not for the upper-tiers of luxury.

I guess in their own way, H does operate on a waitlist/wish list manner, BUT it's not just paying $X to secure the exact QB that you want and having to just wait (like the CyberTruck). It's paying whatever the arbitrary pre-spend is at your store, hoping that the exact bag you want makes its way to your home store and that your store is favoring you at the time due to your pre-spend. (Using "you" as a general sense, not you directly. )

 

[Grand Maven]

Has Hermes come out with an official statement?

 

[acrowcounted]

Has Hermes come out with an official statement?

No, nor will they. Hermes won't acknowledge this more than absolutely necessary and directly to the courts.

 

[haute okole]

I understand that you're using an analogy, but...

Tesla made the CyberTruck waitlist/pay a deposit if you were serious about owning one.

DH got on the waitlist when it was first announced in 2019. It required a nominal deposit of ~$100 (at the time) to join the list. He happily paid it, just in case he wanted the chance to buy one.

He was offered the truck in December, but we were both like it's a ridiculous car, so we passed.

When CyberTruck was released last year, part of the purchase agreement basically said that you wouldn't resell it and only sell it back to Tesla if there was an actual issue with the vehicle (they since removed that clause).

Anyone could have the opportunity to buy the CyberTruck, directly from Tesla, if they want to - as it is a waitlist and eventually, they'll get to the end of the waitlist.

VS. Not everyone has the opportunity to buy a QB directly from H, unless, well we know the story...

If H said that anyone could buy a QB from resale, they would essentially endorse the secondary market, which might not align with the brand (imagine if they did and a fake slipped through?).

Similar to how Chanel sued WGACA, it doesn't feel like a luxury house thing to do... especially not for the upper-tiers of luxury.

I guess in their own way, H does operate on a waitlist/wish list manner, BUT it's not just paying $X to secure the exact QB that you want and having to just wait (like the CyberTruck). It's paying whatever the arbitrary pre-spend is at your store, hoping that the exact bag you want makes its way to your home store and that your store is favoring you at the time due to your pre-spend. (Using "you" as a general sense, not you directly. )

I may be the wrong person to ask because I am not bag centric and I have never experienced this tying phenomenon in my local store in BH. In fact, my SA stated that the secret to getting a QB is to “be kind, that’s it.” The Plaintiffs complaint is factually deficient and although juicy and salacious, the complaint lacks the factual elements, as pleaded, to prevail under the Federal Anti-Trust Laws.

So if you read the complaint on its merits, what you have are Plaintiffs who are suing Hermes because they cannot get Birkins directly from Hermes. Hermes is not stopping them from getting an authentic Birkin from resellers, the Plaintiffs just don’t want to. The issue of tying and the Anti-Trust laws may be their excuse for suing, but because their pleading is defective, their argument should be dismissed as written. It is a red herring, in essence.

That is why this is just such a shame and waste of judicial resources.

 

[MonsoonBirkin]

@haute okole "I am curious if people have bought more because they have heard from others, including reading TPF, that prespend was a prerequisite to obtaining a desired QB? How many people have purchased more because they have heard prespend was required, not directly from someone employed by Hermes, but from others ie., other Hermes consumers, blogs or forum readers but not directly from Hermes?"

I just want to make sure I understand your position: are you stating that you wonder if customers were the ones who invented prespend and drove up the buy-to-QB ratio, rather than it being a calculated business decision by Hermes?

Also just want to clarify on what you're saying here:

my SA stated that the secret to getting a QB is to “be kind, that’s it.”

While your SA stated this, do you personally believe this? Because if so, does that mean you believe--as their company rule and practice--that rude people who spend a lot of money in the store rarely get bags, and polite people with little to no prespend often do?

Those are interesting positions that I've never heard before, and I just want to make sure I'm not twisting your interpretation here.

 

[textilegirl]

I may be the wrong person to ask because I am not bag centric and I have never experienced this tying phenomenon in my local store in BH. In fact, my SA stated that the secret to getting a QB is to “be kind, that’s it.” The Plaintiffs complaint is factually deficient and although juicy and salacious, the complaint lacks the factual elements, as pleaded, to prevail under the Federal Anti-Trust Laws.

So if you read the complaint on its merits, what you have are Plaintiffs who are suing Hermes because they cannot get Birkins directly from Hermes. Hermes is not stopping them from getting an authentic Birkin from resellers, the Plaintiffs just don’t want to. The issue of tying and the Anti-Trust laws may be their excuse for suing, but because their pleading is defective, their argument should be dismissed as written. It is a red herring, in essence.

That is why this is just such a shame and waste of judicial resources.

This.

 

[amna72]

I just want to make sure I understand your position: are you stating that you wonder if customers were the ones who invented prespend and drove up the buy-to-QB ratio, rather than it being a calculated business decision by Hermes?

Also just want to clarify on what you're saying here:


While your SA stated this, do you personally believe this? Because if so, does that mean you believe--as their company rule and practice--that rude people who spend a lot of money in the store rarely get bags, and polite people with little to no prespend often do?

Those are interesting positions that I've never heard before, and I just want to make sure I'm not twisting your interpretation here.

I reached the stage of my life where I like more other Hermes products than their Quota bags, but I could never deny years of chasing the perfect Birkin and Kelly and the efforts I was making to get one, meaning buying everything I could, knowing at the same time that it will bring me closer to the bag of my dreams. There was no other way and I loved it and enjoyed it
Respect for those, especially long term customers, who have the integrity to admit it. Being kind, being polite or being the appropriate person has nothing to do with a Birkin or Kelly, stating otherwise could even really be offensive!

 

[textilegirl]

I just want to make sure I understand your position: are you stating that you wonder if customers were the ones who invented prespend and drove up the buy-to-QB ratio, rather than it being a calculated business decision by Hermes?

Chiming in here to say I absolutely believe this; I’m not intending to meet any legal standard here just expressing an opinion. I believe this because I fundamentally believe in market economics. And further, I don’t believe it was a “calculated business decision by Hermes” but I’ve no doubt that once it appeared to develop Hermes was more than willing to exploit it.

Customers absolutely ‘invented’ prespend; it’s a concocted term but it means nothing more than being what used to be called a ‘big spender’. In many circles monetary largesse means access. This is not news except some people think that flashing cash will get them what they want (at Hermes, a Berking so they can flex further ). Unfortunately for the disgruntled it doesn’t always work, and sometimes it produces unintended consequences. People think you’re a jerk.

ETA: and to relate this to the topic of the lawsuit, I think this, absent more, will turn out to be a non-starter. There’s no constitutional or federal right to a Birkin; there is a right to participate in a marketplace that’s not rigged. But if you can go elsewhere to make your purchase it’s hard to argue that you’ve been aggrieved. There’s no entitlement to be fawned over in a private room with champagne while a gloved worker displays a bag for you to consider purchasing.