Hermès, famed for its ultra-luxury Birkin and Kelly handbags, has long cultivated an aura of exclusivity — not just through scarcity but also through how it manages access to its most coveted products. Investigative reporting by Glitz, as reported on by Complex (https://www.complex.com/style/a/jaelaniturnerwilliams/hermes-tracks-client-access-bags), indicates that some Hermès sales associates research potential customers’ personal details — such as home addresses and social media profiles — and favor buyers who fit certain lifestyle or spending patterns when offering access to high-demand bags. This informal vetting system — where longstanding loyalty and broad spending across Hermès categories can influence whether someone is offered a Birkin — has frustrated some customers, especially those who feel excluded despite significant purchases and see the process as opaque or unfair.

Those tensions over access and perceived “worthiness” became the basis for a federal class action antitrust lawsuit, Cavalleri v. Hermès International et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-01707, Northern District California) filed in 2024 by Tina Cavalleri and others against Hermès International and Hermès of Paris. The plaintiffs alleged an unlawful tying arrangement under the Sherman Act and California law — asserting that Hermès conditioned the opportunity to purchase a Birkin on customers’ prior purchases of other Hermès goods (like shoes, scarves, jewelry, or clothing), effectively leveraging its alleged dominance in “elitist luxury handbags” to coerce broader purchases. They claimed this conduct harmed consumers and unfairly restricted competition.

In September 2025, U.S. District Judge James Donato dismissed the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (SAC) with prejudice, finding it failed to state a plausible antitrust claim. The court explained that the SAC did not adequately define a relevant product market, show Hermès possessed market power in such a market, or plausibly allege harm to competition in any tied product market — all essential elements of a tying claim. The judge emphasized that merely reserving a highly desirable product for high-spending or loyal customers does not, by itself, constitute an antitrust violation absent demonstrable competitive harm. Without viable federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related California state law claims and closed the case.

Interestingly, the 2024 California lawsuit was dismissed for failure to state a claim, yet the allegations that Hermès is once again tracking its customers to determine if they are “Birkin-Worthy” have resurfaced in 2026 in France. Could there be some merit to the original allegations?