Hermès Faces Class Action Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices

[880]

@haute okole, I concur counsel

I’m guessing because it’s a somewhat novel claim the judge gave them some leeway to amend, but that’s plaintiff’s opportunity to get the legal arguments nailed down. The plaintiffs don’t have to do more than allege facts, those will be challenged/proven at trial. But they do have to articulate a sound legal claim, even if it’s a new one.

I don’t know which law school has what clinical specialties at this point in my very lapsed career, but there are likely a few doing some sort of anti-trust or consumer fraud work. That’s where I would have gone for free help if I were serious about the legal case, especially if my clients weren’t prepared to fund a legal campaign against a well prepared and deep pocketed defendant.

Just because it’s a novel legal theory doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value, but you have to actually make the legal arguments, not simply assert something is unfair and that the law should step in and fix it.

Maybe they thought Hermes would give them birkins as a settlement

I think case law is pretty clear that single luxury brands retail policies cannot constitute antitrust behavior (noting that the courts are concerned with protecting competitors). But, I cannot imagine any situation, even with better thought out pleadings, resulting in any settlement.

In fact, to the contrary. I can imagine watch companies and other luxury companies lining up to file briefs as amicus curiae lol Patek and others of that ilk certainly tie purchases in a far more explicit fashion (still legal )

ETA: I am also sure that outside lawyers and in house counsel have clocked plenty of hours to determine even slightest hint of any possible legal issue regarding these retail policies well in advance of implementation

 

[880]

Interestingly, for e reasons that could have been taken into consideration by plaintiffs here) there is this ruling preventing a merger between two lesser priced brands on the grounds that such a merger would stifle competition:

 

[textilegirl]

Interestingly, for e reasons that could have been taken into consideration by plaintiffs here) there is this ruling preventing a merger between two lesser priced brands on the grounds that such a merger would stifle competition:

View attachment 6084704View attachment 6084705

I'm not sure the 'tying' argument at issue in the Hermes situation presents the same sort of competitive concerns as does the Tapestry/Capri merger. I think the antitrust claims are different, although both go to the misuse of monopoly power.

 

[luckyadanosii]

Interestingly, for e reasons that could have been taken into consideration by plaintiffs here) there is this ruling preventing a merger between two lesser priced brands on the grounds that such a merger would stifle competition:

This is... really bad. The merger was denied but it sounds like they want to walk in LVMH's shadow. I would keep an eye on future designs, quality, and marketing. Some of those lesser brands may declare bankruptcy in the future, then suddenly rebrand and refresh after a coincidental acquisition.

I don't trust it. A merger at that scale is too obvious, too greedy.

Hermes doesn't have a monopoly. It's its own company and brand. I still don't understand why they would sue over just the Birkin- when there are exclusives customers do not have access to even if they have the funds.

Why didn't they sue over Hermes cars, not special order but entirely custom bags, and custom furniture. Or even invitations to exclusive events? These are actual things customers can't get unless they establish hi$$$,$$$tory with the brand.

And every luxury brand is like that now that I think about this situation again.

BTW has there been an update to this nonsense case? Will they sue Rolex next? I find the off-catalog showings discriminatory! haha

 

[880]

think the antitrust claims are different, although both go to the misuse of monopoly power.

Agree on all points. Just included it here bc , unlike the H case, this is a more classic case re misuse of monopoly power*

I would keep an eye on future designs, quality, and marketing.

💯 agree esp on your point that H doesn’t have a monopoly I didn’t mean to imply agreement with the decision or the theory of this case. simply that the rationale was better articulated ( it could hardly be worse than the Hermes case).

ETA: * though the point of the article is basically that the fear that a monopoly would raise prices on 300-600USD bags is missing the point. The business plan of these companies is to keep the price point accessible.

 

[Grand Maven]

What's the latest on this case? It made headlines last year. Haven't heard anything on it this year. My guess is it's gonna be thrown out.

 

[Sunlitshadows]

Disgruntled, would be, birkin buyers are not a protected class

I say this as a regular client who would like the right bag to come along and is waiting lol

ETA: I tally prespend as a voluntary contribution to the relevant TPF thread, with the understanding that experiences differ. I don’t think of my shopping as coerced

I tried to convince my husband that my H purchases were involuntary and coerced. That didn't fly, so I had to admit the devil made me do it!