Seemingly defying logic and customary sense, many fashionistas vie to pay $12,000 (and even as much as as a lot as $100,000 for variations made from unique skins equivalent to snake or alligator), for a ladies’s leather-based purse generally known as the “Birkin bag.” Handmade by the French agency Hermes, and named after British pop star Jane Birkin, who popularized the bag a number of a long time in the past, these luggage at the moment grace the arms of celebrities equivalent to Jennifer Lopez and Kim Kardashian.
Anna Shnaidman properly explains this backstory in her Mises Wire contribution “The Secret Financial Concept Behind the $100,000 Birkin Bag.” As she explains, each Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises revealed why costs of extremely fascinating merchandise like Birkin luggage can attain such lofty ranges.
Not solely do Birkin luggage fetch these preliminary costs, however over time a flourishing resale marketplace for the luggage has developed during which these luggage change fingers at costs equal to and even increased than their preliminary retail stage, making them a possible funding alternative for some homeowners. The baggage are of such high quality in each craftsmanship and supplies that they’re meant to final a lifetime.
The Financial Historical past Behind Such Excessive Costs
About 100 years earlier than Austrian economist Carl Menger (1840-1921) supplied his rationalization of the pricing phenomenon, Adam Smith (1723-1790) in his 1776 ground-breaking e-book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations mused that water is just about free in nature, whereas diamonds promote for very excessive costs. But water is important for all times whereas diamonds are merely flashy baubles with no life-sustaining properties.
This is named Smith’s diamond-water paradox, which he and a number of other different economists have been unable to resolve. The reply to the paradox, after all, is that water is ubiquitous (and thus the utility or usefulness of a marginal unit is sort of low), whereas diamonds are scarce (and thus supply excessive utility from a marginal unit). This reply needed to wait till 100 years after Smith wrote his e-book, when the Marginal Revolution—which included the Austrian Carl Menger—established that buyers make buying choices on the margin, that’s, primarily based on marginal utility quite than whole utility. Smith died with out having grasped the reply to his personal diamond-water riddle, however the Austrians have been capable of clarify it decisively.
However that Hermes luggage are superbly made by expert artisans of the best high quality supplies, these options alone can’t account for the bag’s lofty costs. However luxury-good companies like Hermes have proven that if a producer is ready to limit the availability of an merchandise, create enough cachet for it, and impose different necessities on potential consumers, it’s attainable to boost the market-clearing worth very excessive.
There may be nothing unlawful about this advertising technique; nobody is accusing Hermes of “worth gouging.” In reality, the very worth level in itself is taken into account a standing image, solely including to the bag’s cachet amongst these searching for to distinguish themselves from the hoi polloi.
And right here is the kicker to the story: Hermes does, in reality, impose different buy necessities on consumers, qualifying prospects to purchase a Birkin bag solely if they’ve beforehand bought different Hermes merchandise (scarves, jewellery, sneakers), a restrictive advertising coverage that sticks within the craw of some aspiring Birkin bag consumers.
Hermes Bag Purchasers File Lawsuit
However apparently unaware of the lengthy historical past of price-determination for scarce, coveted merchandise, in March 2024, two aspiring California Hermes prospects who weren’t allowed to purchase Birkin luggage filed a category motion lawsuit in US District Courtroom for the Northern District of California in opposition to Hermes, alleging that the corporate violated federal and California antitrust legal guidelines when advertising its Birkin luggage.
The related federal legislation is the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which prohibits actions that limit interstate commerce and competitors. Particularly, this legislation prohibits “tie-in” gross sales, when a vendor affords merchandise collectively as a part of a package deal and requires consumers to buy different merchandise to qualify to buy the merchandise that they in the end need. If a vendor providing a tied-product has enough market energy, these preparations can violate antitrust legal guidelines. The Clayton Act of 1914 additional strengthened the Sherman Act’s prohibition of “tying” agreements. The related California legislation is the Cartwright Act, which prohibits agreements that restrain commerce or restrict manufacturing and agreements to extend or repair costs or in any other case stop competitors.
One of many two plaintiffs was allegedly not allowed to buy a Birkin bag as a result of he had not bought different Hermes merchandise as required. The second plaintiff had spent hundreds of {dollars} on Hermes merchandise, together with Birkin luggage, however was allegedly advised that solely “purchasers who’ve been constant in supporting our enterprise” have been eligible to make the acquisition. This requirement, the plaintiffs alleged, led to a cost of unlawfully “tying” Birkin bag purchases to different prior Hermes purchases, violating the US Sherman Antitrust Act.
In Could 2024, Hermes requested the Courtroom to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it “far-fetched” and claiming that the plaintiffs had failed to point out how gross sales of the purses violated US antitrust legislation. The corporate, furthermore, argued that the plaintiffs had not met the authorized take a look at to point out that the corporate unlawfully tied the sale of two distinct merchandise.
Then, in October 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit, hoping to influence the decide that the corporate unlawfully provides prospects with “enough buy historical past” an opportunity to purchase a Birkin bag, including this time expenses of false promoting and fraud claims, asserting that Hermes gross sales workers induce additional purchases realizing prematurely that prospects will in reality not get a possibility to purchase a Birkin bag.
Hermes continued to disclaim any wrongdoing, and the decide responded that, “Hermes can run its enterprise any approach it needs…the truth that a number of Hermes prospects might not have the ability to get a Birkin bag shouldn’t be a Hermes antitrust drawback.”
It now seems that this lawsuit goes nowhere throughout the present authorized framework. But the plaintiff’s three court docket appearances throughout the previous 12 months point out the lengths to which some pissed off prospects will go in an effort to spend a small fortune on a purse, an goal that now seems to have turn out to be an finish in itself.
The story additionally signifies the over-use that some People more and more make of the judicial system to resolve private grievances. It additionally speaks to the persistence of formidable attorneys who imagine they’ll design ground-breaking authorized methods which will present the reduction their purchasers need. In any case, it’s an intriguing instance of the intersection of financial historical past and idea, present US antitrust legislation, and human makes an attempt to control free market outcomes alongside traces they would favor quite than those who consequence from pure forces.
