This alert is a follow up on the prior alert, Are Limited Editions About to Get Limited? Hermès' Exclusive Birkin Lawsuit, which addressed Northern District of California federal class action claims that Hermès tied sales of its Birkin bags to other purchases in violation of antitrust laws. On September 17, 2025, Judge James Donato dismissed the case.
The Plaintiffs’ Claims
The twice amended class action complaint alleged that Hermès improperly tied sales of its Birkin bags to other Hermès purchases Earlier versions had already been dismissed for not plausibly alleging a relevant market, Hermès’ market power, or an antitrust injury. The Court found that the second amended complaint added no meaningful facts to fix those flaws and remained “purely speculative.”
The Court’s Analysis
The Court identified three central problems. First, plaintiffs could not establish a valid tying market. In antitrust law, the tying product/market refers to the product a seller conditions access to by requiring customers to purchase other goods or services. Plaintiffs initially defined the tying market as “the Birkin bag” itself. From a practical perspective, this framing seemingly made sense since the plaintiffs alleged that Hermès conditioned access to a Birkin bag on the purchase of other Hermès products. Plaintiffs next broadened the market to “luxury handbags,” but alleged no facts showing Hermès had market power within that space. Their final attempt, “elitist luxury handbags in the United States,” rested on dated academic studies and general reports on luxury consumption. Judge Donato dismissed this as “a far cry from properly defining a relevant market for antitrust purposes.” The challenge was that the facts did not neatly align with the typical scenario for a tying claim, and the plaintiffs were unable to allege facts that fit within the tying legal framework.
Second, plaintiffs did not plausibly allege Hermès had market power. Plaintiffs asserted that Hermès controlled 60–75% of this supposed market but offered no facts showing Hermès could exclude competitors or control prices. As the Court underscored, “market share or position are not the same as market power,” and a “mere showing of substantial or even dominant market share alone cannot establish market power sufficient to carry out a predatory scheme.”
Third, the Court found the plaintiffs “did not come close” to plausibly alleging harm to competition in a tied product market. Plaintiffs claimed the tied market encompassed a “kaleidoscope” of goods—scarves, footwear, jewelry, furniture, vases, and more—but provided no rationale for grouping these disparate products together or any evidence that competition within those markets was restrained.
The Result
Because this was plaintiffs’ third attempt, the Court dismissed with prejudice the federal antitrust claims. With no viable federal claims, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the California state claims.
Takeaways
Exclusivity alone does not necessarily constitute an antitrust violation. While Hermès’ sales practices may frustrate consumers, absent market foreclosure or demonstrable harm to competition, such practices do not give rise to a viable claim for liability under U.S. antitrust law. In short, antitrust law is concerned with harm to competition, not harm to consumer preferences.
If you have any questions about the implications of this case, or would like to learn more about how tying arrangements and related antitrust principles could affect your business, please contact one of our Design & Luxury, Antitrust or Intellectual Property attorneys.
