Hermès Class Action Lawsuit: Judge Dismisses Birkin Bag Case for Second Time

Case Overview: A federal judge has dismissed for a second time a class action lawsuit that accused Hermès of manipulating access to its Birkin handbags, ruling that the company's practice did not violate antitrust law.

Consumers Affected: California consumers who alleged they were denied access to Birkin bags despite spending thousands of dollars at Hermès boutiques.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Hermès has once again defeated a proposed class action lawsuit that accused the French luxury house of manipulating access to its iconic Birkin handbags. 

On September 17, U.S. District Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint in San Francisco, marking the second time the case has failed to advance, Reuters reports.

Shoppers Claimed Hermès Forced Extra Spending for Access

The lawsuit was filed in 2024 by California consumers Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga. They alleged Hermès created an artificial system that required customers to purchase large amounts of other merchandise before being offered the chance to buy a Birkin.

According to the plaintiffs, the practice amounted to an unfair “pay-to-play” scheme that left many shoppers frustrated. They argued that Hermès sales staff implied that buyers needed to invest heavily in items such as scarves, belts, and shoes before gaining eligibility for a private showing of a Birkin.

Judge Rejects Allegations of Antitrust Violations

Judge Donato found that the claims did not demonstrate antitrust misconduct. In his order, he wrote, “It may be, as plaintiffs suggest, that Hermès reserves the Birkin bag for its highest-paying customers, but that in itself is not an antitrust violation.”

The judge also noted during earlier hearings that Hermès retains control over how many Birkin bags it chooses to produce and sell. “If Hermès chooses to make five Birkin bags a year and charge a million to them, it can do that,” Donato stated.

By dismissing the case with prejudice, the court closed the door on future attempts to refile the same claims.

A Case Years in the Making

This dispute followed a complaint originally filed in 2023, which was also dismissed by Donato after he expressed doubts about the strength of the antitrust arguments. Plaintiffs returned in 2024 with a revised filing, seeking to represent a class of California consumers who said they were denied access to Birkin bags despite spending thousands of dollars at Hermès boutiques.

The case, formally titled Cavalleri et al. v. Hermès International (No. 3:24-cv-01707-AGT), centered on Hermès’ alleged practice of “tying” the sale of a Birkin to other purchases. Plaintiffs described the retail price of the handbag as “an illusion” that masked a hidden lottery system, requiring substantial purchases of ancillary products just to qualify for consideration.

Hermès Defended Exclusivity as Part of Its Brand Strategy

Hermès countered that the Birkin is handmade in limited quantities and marketed as an exclusive product, not a mass-market item. Attorneys for the company said the brand competes in a crowded luxury market where consumers have numerous alternatives.

The company argued that limiting supply is consistent with maintaining brand prestige and does not amount to a restriction of competition.

Plaintiffs’ Experiences with Birkin Purchases

Cavalleri alleged she had already spent enough at Hermès to rival the cost of a luxury car but was still refused the opportunity to buy another Birkin. Glinoga said he faced the same roadblock, being told he would need to invest in more Hermès goods first.

Their attorneys claimed the practice inflated sales of non-Birkin products while giving consumers little assurance they would ever secure the handbag. They sought damages and an injunction requiring Hermès to make Birkins available without conditions.

Why the Court’s Decision Matters

The ruling adds another layer to ongoing scrutiny of luxury retailers accused of using exclusivity and scarcity to influence customer behavior. In this case, the court reaffirmed that restricting access to high-end products does not, by itself, violate antitrust law.

Hermès currently operates more than 40 boutiques across the United States, including eight in California, where the plaintiffs made their purchases. With the dismissal, the lawsuit is effectively closed unless appealed.

What are your thoughts on luxury brands controlling access to their most exclusive products? Share your opinion in the comments below.