US Judge Tosses Antitrust Suit Against Hermès Over Birkin Sales

The lawsuit, first filed in March 2024, was brought by three plaintiffs who argued that Hermès tied the sale of Birkin and Kelly bags to the purchase of other merchandise such as scarves, jewelry, and home goods. They alleged this practice amounted to an unlawful tying arrangement under federal antitrust law and California statutes. The plaintiffs also claimed Hermès misled shoppers about the true availability of the bags, Reuters reported.

Over the course of the litigation, the plaintiffs amended their complaint multiple times in an effort to address deficiencies highlighted by the court. They argued that the retail price of a Birkin—often exceeding $10,000—was misleading because it concealed what they described as a “hidden lottery system” that pressured buyers into purchasing other Hermès products. Their filings maintained that this inflated the real cost of the handbags and unfairly generated additional revenue for Hermès.

Related: Hermès Moves to Dismiss Birkin Antitrust Case, Citing Flaws in Plaintiff’s Claims

Hermès countered with motions to dismiss, stating the plaintiffs had failed to define a valid market, show the company’s actual market power, or establish consumer harm that antitrust laws are designed to prevent. The luxury brand also rejected claims of false advertising and fraud, insisting that the allegations were built on broad assumptions rather than specific misrepresentations.

In his decision, Judge Donato agreed with Hermès’ position. He ruled that the plaintiffs had not adequately defined a plausible product market, relied on questionable data to support their claims, and did not prove that competition in the tied markets was harmed. The judge also emphasized that high demand and limited supply for Birkin bags, while frustrating for consumers, do not constitute an antitrust violation.

This marks the third dismissal of the plaintiffs’ attempts to press their Sherman Act claims. With no federal claims left, the court declined to take up the remaining state law claims, effectively steering the plaintiffs toward state court if they wish to continue their fight.