Hermès is doubling down on its defense against a lawsuit accusing it of illegally conditioning access to its most coveted handbags on shoppers purchasing other products first. In a newly-filed answering brief, the French luxury goods company urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a California federal judge’s dismissal of a proposed antitrust class action accusing it of operating an unlawful “tying” scheme through its sales practices for Birkin and Kelly bags.
The appeal stems from a lawsuit filed in a California federal court in March 2024 by consumers Tina Cavalleri, Mark Glinoga, and Mengyao Yang, who allege that Hermès pressures would-be Birkin buyers to purchase ancillary products – ranging from scarves and jewelry to footwear and home goods – in order to gain access to its the hard-to-get handbags. According to the plaintiffs, who filed their opening appeal brief in February, Hermès’ alleged allocation scheme artificially inflates the “true” cost of Birkin bags and amounts to unlawful tying under federal antitrust law and California law.
Exclusivity or Illegal Tying?
In its May 20 appellate brief, Hermès argues that the plaintiffs are attempting to transform dissatisfaction with the brand’s exclusivity-driven sales model into an antitrust claim without alleging the type of competitive harm required under tying doctrine.
> Antitrust injury: Among its core arguments, Hermès maintains that the plaintiffs failed to plead any cognizable antitrust injury because they do not plausibly allege harm to competition in any secondary market for ancillary products, nor identify any competitor that was excluded as a result of the company’s alleged conduct. Instead, Hermès says the complaint merely reflects frustration with the difficulty and expense associated with obtaining a Birkin bag.
> “True price” theory: The company also pushes back against the plaintiffs’ theory that ancillary purchases effectively increase the “real” price of a Birkin. Even assuming customers feel pressure to purchase additional products in hopes of improving their standing with sales associates, Hermès argues that such allegations do not amount to unlawful antitrust coercion.
> Lawful selective selling: Hermès further frames the alleged conduct as a lawful allocation system rooted in selective selling and brand management rather than coercion. According to the company, no mandatory purchase requirement exists for customers seeking a Birkin, and the complaint improperly attempts to analogize Hermès’ retail practices to classic tying arrangements involving foreclosure of competition in a secondary market.
Those arguments closely track the reasoning that already persuaded U.S. District Judge James Donato to dismiss the case with prejudice in September 2025. In that ruling, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly define a cognizable tied-product market or adequately allege that Hermès restrained competition in any such market. Even if Hermès favors high-spending customers in allocating Birkin bags, Judge Donato stated, that practice alone does not amount to an antitrust violation.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Now before the Ninth Circuit, the case continues to act as a closely watched test of whether scarcity-driven luxury allocation systems, which extend beyond Hermès, can be reframed as actionable antitrust conduct. While the plaintiffs are seeking to revive claims that courts have thus far viewed as falling outside traditional tying doctrine, Hermès is urging the appellate court to reaffirm a critical distinction: exclusivity, scarcity, and selective access do not, on their own, amount to unlawful restraints on competition.
The case is Cavalleri, et al. v. Hermès International, et al., 3:24-cv-01707 (N.D. Cal.)
Share
