Luxury fashion thrives on exclusivity – and that is by design. Brands cultivate exclusivity through limited editions, selective retail partnerships, and carefully curated consumer experiences. Yet such business strategies can draw the attention of antitrust regulators when access to one product is conditioned on the purchase of another, an arrangement known as tying. 

Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, tying occurs when a company leverages its market power in one product to compel the purchase of another product. Although the Supreme Court’s strong disapproval of tying arrangements has “substantially diminished” (Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 35 (2006)), tying remains an issue in certain industries, like fashion, where control over distribution and image is essential to success. In short: Exclusivity is lawful; coercion is not.

Modern tying doctrine

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984), established the modern framework for analyzing tying arrangements. A tying claim requires a showing that: (1) there are two distinct products; (2) the sale of one (the “tying” product) is conditioned on the purchase of the other product (the “tied” product); (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the tying product to coerce the sale of the tied product; and (4) a “not insubstantial” amount of commerce is affected in the tied product market. 

The classic example of tying is the printer-and-ink model. A manufacturer sells a printer (the tying product) but requires customers to buy its proprietary ink cartridges (the tied product). The effect is to steer or foreclose purchases in the tied market.

In fashion, the arrangement can look different, but it operates the same. For example, a luxury fashion house might allow a retailer to carry its high-demand handbag only if the retailer agrees to stock its less popular clothing line, effectively using one product to sell the other. Today, courts analyze such practices under the rule of reason doctrine, weighing potential harm to competition against legitimate business justifications. That balancing test carries particular significance in luxury markets, where tying arrangements are often used to preserve a brand’s identity or as a merchandising strategy. Put differently, the legal question generally is whether the practice limits competition more than it benefits consumers.

The Birkin case: Lessons for luxury retailers

The recent class action shows how tying claims can arise in luxury retail. In Cavalleri v. Hermès International S.A., the plaintiffs alleged that Hermès conditioned access to its coveted Birkin handbags on customers’ prior purchases of other Hermès goods such as scarves and jewelry. In September 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case with prejudice, finding the complaint did not plausibly allege a relevant market, market power in the tying product, or meaningful competitive harm in the tied markets. The court emphasized that selective sales tactics do not amount to per se illegal tying absent plausible allegations of harm to competition in the tied product market.

For luxury brands, the decision offers both reassurance and guidance. It confirmed that exclusivity remains lawful when grounded in legitimate brand strategy rather than coercion. It also recognized that prioritizing loyal or high-spend clients can be consistent with lawful brand management.

Importantly, the Birkin case confirmed that luxury brands can control distribution and exclusivity, as long as they do not condition access on unwanted purchases in ways that harm competition.

Tying risks along the luxury fashion distribution chain

Although the Birkin case focused on consumer access, tying risks can also arise behind the scenes within wholesale, licensing, and distribution relationships that control how luxury goods reach the market. A common example is when a fashion house grants retailers access to its most coveted handbags only if they agree to purchase slower-selling pieces. This is the retail counterpart to the printer-and-ink model: The must‑have item becomes leverage for moving the rest. When access to a signature product depends on buying others, the brand risks its selective merchandising strategy becoming an unlawful tie.

Similar risks can arise in other areas of the fashion ecosystem. As brands expand e-commerce and loyalty programs, conditioning early access or limited releases on additional purchases or memberships may invite antitrust scrutiny. In licensing, for example, requiring partners to source materials or services exclusively from affiliated entities can raise similar antitrust concerns if such obligations exceed what is necessary for legitimate quality control needs. These risks increase when the brand has significant market power in the tying product, and the arrangement forecloses rivals in the tied market.

Procompetitive justifications

Not every link between products is unlawful. In fashion, tying arrangements often serve legitimate business purposes tied to brand integrity, quality control, and consumer experience. Courts have long recognized that vertical restraints can enhance competition when they improve efficiency or preserve product value. See e.g., Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) (holding that vertical restrictions can enhance competition by improving distributional efficiency); Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006) (emphasizing that exclusivity or product distinction alone does not establish coercive market power). The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division has taken a similar position. In its guidance on Exclusionary Vertical Agreements, the DOJ explains that tying and related vertical practices may serve procompetitive purposes, such as achieving integration efficiencies. For example, the guidance acknowledges that vertical restraints can improve efficiency by reducing transaction costs. The DOJ stresses that such practices must be evaluated in context, balancing potential competitive harm against legitimate business justification rather than condemned outright. 

For fashion houses, these justifications carry particular weight. Bundling products may ensure a consistent aesthetic across collections, protect the craftsmanship and heritage that define the brand, or sustain high service standards among authorized retailers. See e.g., Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) (recognizing that vertical arrangements may enhance consumer choice and brand reputation when they strengthen interbrand competition and prevent free riding). Such goals reflect genuine brand management, not coercion. The key distinction lies in necessity and proportionality: If the connection between products is reasonably necessary to achieve quality or presentation standards, it is likely defensible. When that connection becomes a mechanism to drive unwanted sales or limit consumer choice, it risks antitrust scrutiny. See Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984) (emphasizing that tying arrangements must be evaluated in light of market power, actual foreclosure, and consumer impact rather than being presumed illegal). 

Thus, exclusivity in luxury fashion can enhance competition when it protects what makes the brand unique, but not when it becomes a condition of access. 

U.S. regulatory landscape                                                        

U.S. regulators scrutinize tying arrangements where a prestigious product could confer market power. The DOJ and FTC have reaffirmed that tying remains a key form of exclusionary conduct subject to rule of reason assessment. In its guidance on Exclusionary Vertical Agreements, the DOJ identifies tying as a vertical practice that can restrict rivals’ access to distribution or raise costs for competitors, while acknowledging that such practices may also yield procompetitive efficiencies. The FTC’s Section 5 Policy Statement similarly warns that product linkages or loyalty rebates can constitute unfair methods of competition when they coerce purchases or limit market access. Although recent U.S. enforcement has focused on technology and health care, the agencies’ reasoning applies to luxury fashion. When a prestigious product can confer market power, that magnifies tying risk. 

Taken together, these developments confirm that tying remains firmly within the enforcement spotlight. For luxury brands, the message is clear: Exclusivity and brand control are permissible when used to preserve quality and reputation, but risky when used to compel purchases or restrict consumer choice.

Compliance takeaways for luxury fashion brands

The Birkin decision and recent enforcement trends offer guidance for luxury brands navigating exclusivity and access. The key is understanding where legitimate brand management ends and coercion begins.

1. Document your company’s procompetitive rationale for any exclusivity or other brand control techniques.

2. Maintain contemporaneous records explaining why sales practices or product ties are necessary for quality control, distribution efficiency, or brand presentation. Such documentation can distinguish lawful brand protection from unlawful leverage in real time.

3. Policies that reward loyal customers or authorized retailers are acceptable. Those that condition access to must-have items on the purchase of other goods or services are not.

4. Monitor your company’s market presence across various regions, markets, and products. Understanding the relevant market dynamics is important when assessing legal risks associated with exclusivity. 

5. The more influence a brand holds in a given category – whether handbags, footwear, or accessories – the greater the scrutiny any tying or bundling practice will receive. 

6. Review licensing and sourcing requirements. Ensure that exclusive-sourcing clauses or affiliate requirements are tied to legitimate quality standards rather than commercial coercion. 

7. Sales and retail teams should receive training to help understand that encouraging cross-purchases is different than requiring them. Internal messaging should reflect this distinction. 

8. Engage outside antitrust counsel early when an issue arises. Small contractual or promotional decisions, particularly around limited releases or loyalty programs, may have antitrust significance when scarcity drives demand. 

Ultimately, exclusivity is not the enemy of competition. In luxury fashion, exclusivity drives value. Antitrust risk arises when exclusivity becomes leverage or when prestige shifts from a marker of craftsmanship to a precondition for access disguised as brand integrity. Avoiding coercion is key in this area.