Hermes Wins Dismissal of Tying Claims

California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes
January 29, 2026

Tina Cavalleri, et al. v. Hermes International, Case No. 3:24-cv-01707-JD (N.D. Cal.)

On September 17, 2025, Northern District of California Judge James Donato granted Hermes International and Hermes of Paris’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint by a putative class on behalf of national and Californian consumers. 2025 WL 2662897. The suit alleged that Defendants engaged in an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and California’s False Advertising Law. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants refused to sell their popular Birkin bag to consumers unless those consumers also bought other Hermes products. Id. at *1. The Court dismissed the complaint due to deficiencies in plausibly pleading a proper tying product market, market power in the tying market, and harm to competition in the tied product market.

The Court first found that Plaintiffs wrongfully assumed that all tying arrangements are per se illegal. Id. To apply per se condemnation, a plaintiff must prove: 1) that the defendant tied together the sale of two distinctive products or services; 2) that the defendant possesses enough economic power in the tying market to coerce its customers into purchasing the tied product; and (3) that the tying arrangement affects a not insubstantial volume of commerce in the tied product market. Id. at *2; see also Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2023). The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to justify per se application to the case at hand. 2025 WL 2662897, at *2.

However, the Court applied per se liability for the purposes of dismissal and still found that Plaintiffs failed to allege a tying product market. Id. at *1. The Court ruled that an essential element of a tying claim included plausible allegations of Defendants’ market power with respect to the tying product. Id. at *2. In this case, Plaintiffs alleged that the tying product market was the market for elitist luxury handbags in the United States. Id. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ reliance on institutional investment papers and academic articles on luxury good consumption failed to plausibly allege the relevant market as needed to survive at the motion to dismiss stage. Id. The Court explained that the materials simply described consumer perceptions about product quality and exclusivity rather than a relevant market for antitrust purposes. Id. Without a cognizable tying market, the Court further found that Plaintiffs only made conclusory allegations of market power. Id.

Finally, dismissal of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was also based on failure to plausibly identify the tied product market and harm done in the market due to Defendants’ conduct. Id. at *3. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint failed to properly identify a single, cohesive tied market and instead provided a “kaleidoscope of products covering everything from ‘scarves and shawls, ready to wear clothing, footwear, watches, jewelry, fragrancies, accessories (including hats, gloves, ties, and sunglasses)’ to ‘home goods such as table wear, furniture, blankets, and decorative objects like vases and trays.’” Id. The Court found the amended complaint to be devoid of any facts to support “lumping such a hugely diverse array of non-substitutable products into a single market” and that competition for these goods had been illegally restrained by Defendants. Id.

The Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice as it found that the second amended complaint marked Plaintiffs’ third opportunity to state a plausible Sherman Act claim. Id. For that reason, the Court ruled that further leave to amend was not warranted and refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. Id.

_________________________________

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: January 2026