Rich People Sue Hermès for Not Taking Their Money
Does the lawsuit over Birkin selling practices stand a chance?
Background reading for today’s big story:
In today’s issue:
Hermès has been sued for not selling Birkin bags to people who haven’t bought a bunch of other Hermès stuff.
Does this case stand a chance? Back Row has an answer.
Loose Threads, including: Michael Kors retirement rumors; Anna Wintour hands over a ceremonial sword; Condé layoff negotiations get uglier; and more.
If you were a literary great writing a novel about the dystopian consumerism wrought by late-stage capitalism, you couldn’t dream up a better lawsuit than the one filed by plaintiffs in California against Hermès this week. Tina Cavalleri and Mark Glinoga accused Hermès of unlawfully not selling them Birkins unless they bought other Hermès stuff first.
It’s a fascinating, bizarre case with no precedent in fashion. It also seems like a peculiar rich-person thing to do. If they had the money to file the suit and they want the Birkins badly enough to do so, wouldn’t it have been easier and more fun to just buy some Hermès coasters and leather pants and call it a day?
The plaintiffs’ stories are as old as Birkin lore itself. From the lawsuit:
Plaintiff Cavalleri has spent tens of thousands of dollars at Hermès, and had been coerced into purchasing Ancillary Products in order to obtain access to Hermès Birkin bags, based on the practices alleged herein. In or about September 2022, Plaintiff contacted Hermes [sic] about purchasing another Birkin bag but was told specialty bags are going to “clients who have been consistent in supporting our business.” Plaintiff Cavalleri understood she would have to spend more on Ancillary Products to obtain acces to another Birkin Handbag. As a result, Plaintiff Cavalleri was uable to purchase another Birkin Handbag in September 2022.
…In or about 2023, Plaintiff Glinoga sought to purchase a Birkin Handbag, but was counseled by Defendant’s sales associates to purchase Ancillary Products in order to potentially obtain a Birkin Handbag. Plaintiff Glinoga made multiple attempts to purchase a Birkin bag, but was told on each occasion he needed to purchase other items and accessories. As a result, Plaintiff Glinoga was unable to purchase a Birkin Handbag.
You may now un-clutch your chests.
The legal argument here is that Hermès employs “tying” practices to sales of Birkins, meaning customers have to buy other stuff — logo plates, horse saddles, yachting towels, you name it — in order to purchase the bags. At the same time, the plaintiffs allege that Hermès has an unfair monopoly on selling Birkins.
Does this lawsuit stand a chance?
Back Row has interviewed former Hermès sales people on how Birkin sales actually work. A highlight:
When you had random people coming in off the street to buy a Birkin, how would you deal with them?
There were days where we didn't make [enough sales]. There's a slow season, too. In the northeast, a lot of your clients would be gone from November to January or February because they're at their ski house, they're in Palm Beach, they're in St. Barts for the holidays. If you're lucky and you walk in and maybe we didn't make our [quota], maybe we'd sell you a Birkin because you were nice and you weren't obnoxious. That was the power that you held as a sales associate.
Your store director had to trust you. There were times where you would would say, “You know what? She's a nice girl, let's give her a Birkin.” Then there were days where you'd be like, Uh, that's cute, but no.
…And would the one-off Birkin shoppers be able to get a basic black style?
If you're not one of those clients that is getting a custom order, you're getting what I sell you or you're not getting it. You’re going to take this hideous green because no one else wants it.
This already weakens the claim that you absolutely cannot buy a Birkin unless you have already stuffed your country house with $2,000 “H” blankets.
Fordham Fashion Law Institute Director Susan Scafidi said she doesn’t usually like to call outcomes, but feels like this case is pretty clear-cut.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Back Row to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.