In the latest round of the closely-watched dispute between Chanel and The RealReal, the luxury resale platform is doubling down on its antitrust allegations with proposed amended counterclaims. In a newly-filed motion to amend its counterclaims, The RealReal again recasts Chanel’s enforcement efforts as part of what it alleges is a broader effort to limit competition from resellers in the “top-tier investment-grade handbags and hold-value handbags” market and asks a green-light from the court to replead those claims with additional factual support.
Aiming to expand the scope of the case beyond counterfeits and authentication claims, The RealReal (“TRR”) is effectively looking to position the dispute as a test of whether a brand can use a combination of legal claims, market influence, and messaging to shape the conditions under which its products are resold and in doing so, limit competition in the market for high-end luxury handbags and related resale activity.
The Case in Brief: First filed in 2018, Chanel’s complaint centered on trademark infringement and related claims, including allegations tied to a number of purportedly counterfeit items. At the same time, Chanel challenged TRR’s resale model and authentication claims, arguing that only it can definitively determine authenticity and that TRR’s representations to the contrary are misleading to consumers.
TRR asserted counterclaims in response, asserting that Chanel is engaging in anticompetitive conduct aimed at suppressing resale competition. In March 2026, the court dismissed those counterclaims, finding that TRR had not adequately alleged timely anticompetitive conduct or harm to competition, but permitted TRR to seek leave to amend.
The Alleged Antitrust Playbook
Seeking to cure the deficiencies identified by the court and replead its antitrust counterclaims, TRR filed a motion to amend on April 20, as first reported by TFL, in which it focuses on Chanel’s alleged interactions with media, retailers, and consumers …
> Media Influence and Advertising Restrictions: TRR alleges that Chanel leveraged relationships with publications like Women’s Wear Daily to block or restrict its advertising, conduct it characterizes as both an anticompetitive agreement and tortious interference. Framed this way, the issue is not just access to ad space, but access to the channels that confer visibility and legitimacy in the luxury market.
> Retail Access and Supply Constraints: TRR claims that Chanel engaged in a coordinated campaign to block its access to retail space that caters to the relevant market and cut off access to consignors, extending its theory into the physical market. It also points to a broader effort to restrict supply at the source, including allegations that Chanel has blacklisted customers to prevent them from buying and reselling or consigning its goods.
Taken together, these allegations aim to show how Chanel can influence not just where resale occurs, but whether inventory reaches the secondary market at all.
> Litigation as Competitive Strategy: TRR casts Chanel’s lawsuit as part of a broader pattern of “sham litigation,” arguing that the case is less about enforcing its rights and more about raising costs for resellers and “planting doubt in consumers’ minds about resellers so that they feel they must pay whatever price Chanel charges.”
> Consumer Messaging and Market Perception: TRR also points to Chanel’s public statements suggesting that pre-owned products are “likely to be fake” and linking legitimate resellers to counterfeit channels. These allegations are aimed at showing how consumer perception can be shaped in ways that, as TRR argues, unlawfully steer demand back toward the primary market – leading consumers to purchase higher-priced first-sale goods, consign less, and in turn constrain resale supply, increase prices, and limit consumer choice.
>> TRR ties these allegations to broader antitrust harm, arguing that Chanel has “waged a years-long, anticompetitive campaign to eliminate competition from resellers,” deploying tactics designed to “deny resellers … inputs necessary for competition,” reduce resale supply, reinforce higher prices, and limit consumer choice.
The Broader Stakes: Who Owns Luxury After the First Sale?
At its core, the dispute – and TRR’s counterclaims in particular – test how far brands can go in shaping resale markets without directly controlling them. While the first sale doctrine limits a brand’s ability to dictate what happens to a products after it is sold, TRR’s claims put pressure on the extent to which brands can influence resale indirectly – through control over access, visibility, and consumer perception.
If the court allows TRR’s amended counterclaims to proceed, the case could reframe how those practices are evaluated. Conduct that has traditionally been viewed as part of brand management – restricting access to key channels, influencing how products are presented, and shaping consumer trust – may face greater scrutiny when it operates collectively to affect competition in downstream markets.
The case is Chanel, Inc., v. The RealReal, Inc., 1:18-cv-10626 (SDNY).
Share
