Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices

[Angiebbb]

@Angiebbb, I don't think people are dismissing others' feelings, at least I hope not. The disappointment is real, the frustration is real; I have sympathy for those who've spent more money than they'd like on goods they wouldn't have purchased had they not felt that it would improve their chances to obtain an Hermes bag. But at some point they need to decide what to do with those feelings.

For a number of reasons, my own choice was to include shopping in the secondary market along with my boutique spending, and along with many other tPF posters I have recommended this option on several threads. It's not universally popular (not going there on this thread) but it is an option. I've also considered purchases from bespoke brands and may yet pursue that option. I've enjoyed my non-bag Hermes purchases, and haven't considered them in the context of looking for a bag (I nearly had a heart attack when I found out just how much I've spent over the years, not a lot for some but plenty for me). And I'd like to think that if I felt, on a consistent basis, that my SA was starting to push me to buy stuff in which she knows I have no interest, my visits to the boutique would be much less frequent (and I live out of town as it is). I'm always interested in seeing what else is going on at the boutique besides the things I'm already interested in, and when she shows me something I don't care for I'm not shy in telling her why it's a no-go. I would wish for everyone to have that same experience, but I don't think filing a lawsuit will help.

I would never file a lawsuit against them or any other company unless I got physically injured (where I come from, to be litigious, involve lawyers and the like is generally frowned upon), but if this lawsuit is out there, I would appreciate if its effect would lead to the review of their internal sales practices, more training and the like. They could hire McKinsey, Bain, Accenture to at least make the process somewhat more transparent. There are probably specialized consulting companies that work just on that.

I wasn’t even allowed to change SAs in the same store or same city. It is crazy to me that I couldn’t even choose who to shop with.

 

[Israeli_Flava]

Amen amen AyyyyyyyyyyMEN!

 

[QuelleFromage]

Can I walk into ANY other brand and walk out with any bag I want IF it’s in stock there? Yes. And that’s the discrepancy for me. I’m not as familiar with the world of watches but I think they seem to be a class to themselves - most of the watch “siblings” (Rolex, Patek etc) manage stock similarly.

You cannot walk into Chanel and buy any bag in most places...it's actually been a while since it was that way.
You can't walk into Loro Piana and buy a bag easily now that Loro is weirdly "hot in a quiet way" - at least in Paris there is now a waiting list for the bags and in NYC for some shoes.
There was a point about five years ago (more?) where JACQUEMUS wouldn't sell Le Chiquito to new customers and used the exact same line about being a longtime "fan of brand" etc etc (I remember this vividly as I had been buying Jacquemus for ages and all my friends wanted this bag....they "let" me buy three for friends).
Hell, I remember as a teen in the 90s when Chanel Vamp nail color was unobtainable and you needed a "connect" at Chanel to get it, or you could buy it on eBay for 3x the price.
This is not new.

When you say something is only being offered to preexisting customers, that technically is a tie. In essence, the seller will not supply the desired good until some other items have been purchased. There are some other subtleties depending on whether the target item is being presented as a separate item available for purchase to the general public, but the tie is still there.

If I go to Home Depot to buy a hammer, and they tell me I have to spend money on a microwave first, that’s a tie. If I buy a microwave and they then say I need to buy a sandwich, that’s a tie. If I buy the sandwich, and then they say I need to go to the store next week to buy the hammer because it’s out of stock right now, the tie remains. If next week rolls by and I go to Home Depot, and they tell me I need to go to the store in Albuquerque to buy the hammer, that’s still a tie. The distance in time and space between the build-up transactions doesn’t really matter, because the tie refers to the requirement of buying other items before being able to buy the target good.

The difference I think you’re alluding to is whether a tie is lawful. Nothing you’ve talked about, however, refutes the idea of a tie in order to buy a quota bag.

It’s still tying. Right now, it seems that you reject attempts to define or explain what tying is. Maybe you can define what tying means to you, and what constitutes a tie. Because it seems to me you have a very narrow definition where nothing any company does counts as tying

It's not anyone here who has a "narrow definition" of tying...the legal definition of tying is what is narrow.
If you don't mean legally, but just "is x tied to y", well, yes, but this entire thread is about a lawsuit, not about whether x is related to y in any possible way

 

[FrenchNewbie]

You cannot walk into Chanel and buy any bag in most places...it's actually been a while since it was that way.
You can't walk into Loro Piana and buy a bag easily now that Loro is weirdly "hot in a quiet way" - at least in Paris there is now a waiting list for the bags and in NYC for some shoes.
There was a point about five years ago (more?) where JACQUEMUS wouldn't sell Le Chiquito to new customers and used the exact same line about being a longtime "fan of brand" etc etc (I remember this vividly as I had been buying Jacquemus for ages and all my friends wanted this bag....they "let" me buy three for friends).
Hell, I remember as a teen in the 90s when Chanel Vamp nail color was unobtainable and you needed a "connect" at Chanel to get it, or you could buy it on eBay for 3x the price.
This is not new.



It's not anyone here who has a "narrow definition" of tying...the legal definition of tying is what is narrow.
If you don't mean legally, but just "is x tied to y", well, yes, but this entire thread is about a lawsuit, not about whether x is related to y in any possible way

Not sure I agree with that.

There have many many times where I have walked into Chanel and been offered a multitude of bags; SA have even opened the closet and let me take my pick. And I was just offered an ostrich bag at Loro Piana yesterday. Didn't take any of them, but the point is they were available for purchase if I wanted them.

 

[horselove]

Hermes has a knack for ignoring karens. I like that

 

[sosauce]

You cannot walk into Chanel and buy any bag in most places...it's actually been a while since it was that way.
You can't walk into Loro Piana and buy a bag easily now that Loro is weirdly "hot in a quiet way" - at least in Paris there is now a waiting list for the bags and in NYC for some shoes.
There was a point about five years ago (more?) where JACQUEMUS wouldn't sell Le Chiquito to new customers and used the exact same line about being a longtime "fan of brand" etc etc (I remember this vividly as I had been buying Jacquemus for ages and all my friends wanted this bag....they "let" me buy three for friends).
Hell, I remember as a teen in the 90s when Chanel Vamp nail color was unobtainable and you needed a "connect" at Chanel to get it, or you could buy it on eBay for 3x the price.
This is not new.



It's not anyone here who has a "narrow definition" of tying...the legal definition of tying is what is narrow.
If you don't mean legally, but just "is x tied to y", well, yes, but this entire thread is about a lawsuit, not about whether x is related to y in any possible way

Whether or not tying is legal is different than saying something is just completely untied to begin with. That’s the point I’m getting at.

The legal definition of tying is also quite broad and vague. I’m just trying to point out that when other people say, “That’s not tying,” I think what they really mean is, “That falls within the limits of tying.” Which does mean something different.

 

[Angiebbb]

Not sure I agree with that.

There have many many times where I have walked into Chanel and been offered a multitude of bags; SA have even opened the closet and let me take my pick. And I was just offered an ostrich bag at Loro Piana yesterday. Didn't take any of them, but the point is they were available for purchase if I wanted them.

I think the only Chanel leather bags that had a waitlist in the past couple of years were the heart bag, the star and the mini single flap with the star. A lot of Minaudière don’t hit the stores, but if they do, they are available for anyone to purchase. Loro Piana always has many of those bags available.

 

[706MadisonAv]

Loro Piana always has many of those bags available.

100% true. Loro Piana is very accessible and makes the clients happy in that way. I have not seen anyone having hard time shopping at Loro Piana.

 

[MonsoonBirkin]

It's not anyone here who has a "narrow definition" of tying...the legal definition of tying is what is narrow.

The legal definition on tying really isn't narrow, though. Far from it It's shifted throughout history and the courts have used a number of different litmus tests, some of which have been upheld and others which have been modified completely. Depending on the situation, it appears courts today generally seem to uphold a per se or a modified per se approach. Here's a writeup on tying from the DOJ that I found fascinating:

The Antitrust Economics Of Tying: A Farewell To Per Se Illegality

www.justice.gov

Some key takeaways: consumer preference falls into some of these standards that must be met for tying. That includes the overarching question of whether or not the consumer would have bought the ancillary product on their own (ie, a bracelet) had it not been bundled with another (a bag). So with H, it doesn't matter how many of us claim people shouldn't buy stuff they don't want to get a bag, or that they themselves have never felt coerced to buy things they didn't absolutely adore... if enough other customers--including those Instagrammers we all claim have wrecked the system--do not generally value those ancillary items, it can pass this particular legal standard.

But to win a case like this, it seems meeting other standards are required, too. In the seminal Jefferson Parish Hospital case referenced in the link, the hospital required people to buy their anaesthesia services in order to have surgery. It was successfully proven that most customers would have sought out anaesthesia from other sources if given the choice. Because I have to think it'd be difficult to disentangle which consumers at this particular hospital were coerced into accepting both services, the court also looked at other hospitals to see if consumers, generally, bought these services separately. It found they did in order to prove the consumer preference aspect. Despite this element being proven well enough, they were not found liable because the hospital didn't have sufficient market power (even though it was something like an impressive 30% market share). If these particular components are emphasized, then market power (proving that Hermes has significant market power in hand bags relative to other industries) will be tough to overcome. As will the anticompetitive effects and how this practice hinders other companies from carrying out their own business.

 

[MonsoonBirkin]

Amen amen AyyyyyyyyyyMEN!

@Israeli_Flava , I like you. I generally agree with your views, and your fashion sense is superb. But I do not like this video.

3:49: “Hermes doesn’t care about you… all they care about is making money.”

14:25: “I was given this one Kelly after one purchase by the manager whom I befriended… I spoke the language, I showed that I was an enthusiast for the brand, we spoke about fashion.”

I’m trying hard to reconcile this narration I hear from her and other supporters: Hermes only cares about my money, and they will never care about me as a person. They are not my friends, and they never will be my friend. They are a corporation and like all others, they have a sole goal of delivering value to shareholders. They use me to do it because it’s not personal, it’s business. If I expect otherwise, I’m a chump. But to transact with them to purchase the goods I want, they need to care about me as a person. I need to befriend them. Give them Christmas cards. They need to like me. And I should like them. Because if I don’t, I shouldn’t shop with them. Hermes is about developing a personal relationship with its customers—it’s not just business. That’s what makes this company so special! They're not like other corporations.

I swear to the deities above, this hypocrisy is being used as both sword and shield by the company and those seeking to justify the company's ethically questionable practices.

3:23: “If you are going in as shoppers, nobody is holding a gun to your head.”

NOT THIS AGAIN. Y’all, If the defence attorney for Microsoft in their tying lawsuit (in which the company lost) asked a witness, “nobody held a gun to your head and coerced you into buying this OS, did they? Why didn’t you just buy Apple instead?” The plaintiff would have every right to object not just on the grounds of calling for an improper legal conclusion, but also being so misleading in planting a bad fact. A curative instruction from the judge would be called for. Meaning, it’s such a dumb/bad question that when applied to legal matter at hand, that the lawyer who asked it risks getting a spanking from a judge whose job is otherwise to be a referee. “Coercion” as we use in common parlance deviates from the legal definition.

I don’t expect influencers to know these nuances, and nor do they have to… but hearing lines like this from H supporters when commenting on a lawsuit is as ridiculous as hearing from the extreme haters (who I also don't agree with), “Boohoo, this lawsuit now means no rich person’s going to get their overpriced bags from Hermes.”

 

[Israeli_Flava]

@Israeli_Flava , I like you. I generally agree with your views, and your fashion sense is superb. But I do not like this video.



I’m trying hard to reconcile this narration I hear from her and other supporters: Hermes only cares about my money, and they will never care about me as a person. They are not my friends, and they never will be my friend. They are a corporation and like all others, they have a sole goal of delivering value to shareholders. They use me to do it because it’s not personal, it’s business. If I expect otherwise, I’m a chump. But to transact with them to purchase the goods I want, they need to care about me as a person. I need to befriend them. Give them Christmas cards. They need to like me. And I should like them. Because if I don’t, I shouldn’t shop with them. Hermes is about developing a personal relationship with its customers—it’s not just business. That’s what makes this company so special! They're not like other corporations.

I swear to the deities above, this hypocrisy is being used as both sword and shield by the company and those seeking to justify the company's ethically questionable practices.



NOT THIS AGAIN. Y’all, If the defence attorney for Microsoft in their tying lawsuit (in which the company lost) asked a witness, “nobody held a gun to your head and coerced you into buying this OS, did they? Why didn’t you just buy Apple instead?” The plaintiff would have every right to object not just on the grounds of calling for an improper legal conclusion, but also being so misleading in planting a bad fact. A curative instruction from the judge would be called for. Meaning, it’s such a dumb/bad question that when applied to legal matter at hand, that the lawyer who asked it risks getting a spanking from a judge whose job is otherwise to be a referee. “Coercion” as we use in common parlance deviates from the legal definition.

I don’t expect influencers to know these nuances, and nor do they have to… but hearing lines like this from H supporters when commenting on a lawsuit is as ridiculous as hearing from the extreme haters (who I also don't agree with), “Boohoo, this lawsuit now means no rich person’s going to get their overpriced bags from Hermes.”

You make great points dear. I totally understand what you are feeling & your perspective.
While I have developed some great relationships with various SAs and SMs while shopping at various Hermes boutiques, I'm of the opinion that the "greater Hermes" doesn't care about me and my coins at all. Not coming from a touchy feely place here.... it's just business. I could recite so many examples of this (for me personally) but it's not that deep (except for the way i was treated after being sold a stinky Birkin... that was DEEEEP and totally FOUL). In fact, that experience definitely colors my perspective on all of this. I think you may understand that I am just not moved by this lawsuit... sorry to be so cold. I feel I am being realistic. xoxooxox

 

[MonsoonBirkin]

I could recite so many examples of this (for me personally) but it's not that deep (except for the way i was treated after being sold a stinky Birkin... that was DEEEEP and totally FOUL). In fact, that experience definitely colors my perspective on all of this.

OMG, you got a rasta Birkin? I heard about that debacle! I'm so sorry that happened--I'm surprised they didn't have the hubris to tell you it was limited edition.

 

[Israeli_Flava]

OMG, you got a rasta Birkin? I heard about that debacle! I'm so sorry that happened--I'm surprised they didn't have the hubris to tell you it was limited edition.

Yes they did and denied that the stink was in Epsom Birkins! They said I had buyers remorse
I literally had to send H Corporate in Paris a certified letter IN FRENCH about the situation and threaten to sue them before I got a replacement bag (after 7 months, being lied to by H on a plethora of occasions, cutting ties with my local boutique bc the SM yelled at me & 7000 tears later)! THEY DON'T CARE. PERIODT.

 

[xlana]

Lawyer here (and ironically I live in the Bay Area too!), but not in antitrust law. I think this case will likely settle as others have already mentioned. Purchasing a luxury bag isn't something that affects you in a significant way versus say something like accessing a service or product that's material to daily life/society. That's when it really matters to a court and that's the legislative intent behind antitrust law. Also, it's really debatable whether plaintiffs were "coerced" into making "ancillary" purchases especially for "luxury" purchases. They didn't sign a contract, they didn't get in writing that if I bought x items at x price I would get y and I doubt the SA made any firm verbal promises either. This claim will be hard to prove on plaintiffs' end. I would be very surprised if they can even get this case class certified - Hermes will very likely want to settle this case ASAP before it even gets to that point.

I am not a car person, but my husband who is, says that Ferrari is similar to Hermes in that you have to be offered a car. I don't think Ferrari has been sued under antitrust law but it's the same logic. Still - I'll be following what happens as I'm interested as are my friends who are also lawyers and fashion enthusiasts!!

 

[Angiebbb]

You make great points dear. I totally understand what you are feeling & your perspective.
While I have developed some great relationships with various SAs and SMs while shopping at various Hermes boutiques, I'm of the opinion that the "greater Hermes" doesn't care about me and my coins at all. Not coming from a touchy feely place here.... it's just business. I could recite so many examples of this (for me personally) but it's not that deep (except for the way i was treated after being sold a stinky Birkin... that was DEEEEP and totally FOUL). In fact, that experience definitely colors my perspective on all of this. I think you may understand that I am just not moved by this lawsuit... sorry to be so cold. I feel I am being realistic. xoxooxox

I don’t agree with every statement of the video, but I do agree in the grand scheme of things that ultimately the business does not care about anyone in particular, unless you are in the millions of dollars annual spend category. That many employees can care about an individual as a person, of course a lot do. I moved stores in a country and remained great friends with my former SA. My friend that drops at least 400k in a store a year was not allocated a bag on her birthday, because they were trying to see if the one bag a person would fly. They gave her a nice flower bouquet. She disappeared for 5 months, and only then they contacted her with a special bag for her. If you spend at least a million dollars at Chanel a year, they will get whatever bag you want in Japan if they need to, and that bag will be available there when you come to the store on your birthday. There is no comparison on the level of service provided by Chanel and Hermes for top spending clients, Chanel seems to be superior for clients that are on that spending category.
The business model is “you need to be a loyal friend of the brand” bc they need to sell their jewelry, RTW, furniture and other items that don’t sell themselves and they rely on the desirability of two group of bags to do so. Chanel can make 200+ bags a season and most of their RTW might not even hit the shelves bc they were sold to top clients after the runway show. If they make plates, pillows, baby blankets, they will sell out.
It seems H’s policy on their goods is that they are perfect and many people check them, so they have absolutely no flaws. They gave me the run around on a pair of shoes before. The shoes were not used and it was clear there was defect on the sole that was not visible if you didn’t look closely. When I brought the shoe in, they mentioned: let’s see if this is an imperfection, probably not because our products are always perfect, insinuating that I had damaged the unused shoe. After a few months I get an email there was an imperfection and we will give you a store credit. I didn’t live in the country and didn’t want a credit. They also tried to circumvent consumer protection laws in that country which states you must take back anything that is defective and give the client money back if that is the person’s wish. I had to send them the law so they would refund my money.

This is not “luxurious” service. Target will probably take anything back unused if the item is clearly defective.

Anyone makes mistakes, but their artisans do not.