Could this be the beginning of the end for Hermès pre-spend requirements?
This week, a lawsuit was filed in California accusing Hermès of violating antitrust laws in the U.S. by making access to Birkin and Kelly bags conditional on buying other products first.
Two California residents, Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga, have brought forward a class action case. They argue that Hermès’ well-known pre-spend model is essentially an illegal “tying” arrangement, where customers must buy unrelated items before being allowed to purchase the coveted bags.
What the Lawsuit Claims
The complaint is riddled with inaccuracies and even typos—like misspelling "Birkin." The plaintiffs’ legal team seems unfamiliar with how luxury retail works, particularly with Hermès’ exclusivity model.
- They claim Hermès sells nearly everything online except Birkins, which isn’t true—even other in-demand items are missing from the online store.
- They state Hermès spends millions marketing Birkins and has sold “thousands,” which lacks proof.
- The plaintiffs argue prices are artificially high due to the forced purchases, ignoring the wider industry trend of annual price hikes.
- They suggest Birkins are uniquely unavailable in stores unless a client is “worthy,” but scarcity spans across Hermès’ product line.
- They don’t acknowledge the existence of Hermès’ Special Order program.
- They assert that since sales associates receive no commission on Birkins, they’re pushed to upsell other items instead.
Analyzing the Legal Arguments
Cavalleri claims she spent tens of thousands of dollars only to be told she needed to be more consistent in her support of the brand. Glinoga had similar experiences, being encouraged to buy other products to qualify for a Birkin offer.
The plaintiffs accuse Hermès of tying and monopolistic behavior—two practices that are only illegal under specific conditions. The lawsuit suggests Hermès uses its dominance in the Birkin market to inflate demand for unrelated items, limiting competition.
What Happens Next?
Legal experts note that neither tying nor monopolies are automatically unlawful. It’s unclear whether Hermès’ exclusivity practices truly harm competition, especially since Hermès can’t be held responsible for controlling the entire luxury bag market.
In the end, the burden will be on the plaintiffs to prove that Hermès has used its popularity to unfairly manipulate consumer behavior. And while this lawsuit has generated buzz, it faces an uphill battle in the courtroom.