Louis Vuitton is facing allegations of “invidious race-based discrimination” in a newly-filed lawsuit, with the luxury brand being accused of blacklisting – and wrongfully denying services to – consumers on the basis of race. In the complaint that they filed in a federal court in California last week, Tracy Reneé Williams, her daughter Brandi Williams, and their friend Kristopher Enoch (the “plaintiffs”) claim that Louis Vuitton discriminated against them by “falsely identifying” them either “orally or in writing … [as] drug dealers” and then refusing to permit them entry to its stores, “where they previously had shopped repeatedly and were well known.”
According to the September 13 complaint that they lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the plaintiffs claim that they were among some of Louis Vuitton’s “best and highest spending customers,” purchasing “over one half million dollars in Louis Vuitton products annually, and up to or around $60,000 on some days.” They maintained VIP status with the brand as a result of such spending until September 2022 when the plaintiffs say that they were denied service without cause and subjected to false accusations of criminal activity.
The plaintiffs allege that in September 2022, they received identical emails from Louis Vuitton, which stated: “It has come to our attention that Louis Vuitton has been unable to satisfy your needs. Please be advised that Louis Vuitton is no longer prepared to do business with you and we ask that you no longer patronize our boutiques or attempt to order our products via telephone, online, or in person at any Louis Vuitton store.” The emails also instructed them not to contact Louis Vuitton stores further, directing all communications to the brand’s legal department.
The statement that “‘Louis Vuitton has been unable to satisfy your needs’ did not reflect any action or complaint by the plaintiffs,” who claim that they “had sought to continue to buy from Louis Vuitton.” The complaint suggests that Louis Vuitton suddenly took issue with their use of cash to pay for their purchasing, asserting that they each “frequently paid for their purchases with cash for several years before and until September 2022.” In fact, they are that “many … [Louis Vuitton] customers purchase Louis Vuitton products at their stores with cash” and that Louis Vuitton, “as its business practice, accepts cash payments. Indeed, Louis Vuitton uses a special paper form for its customers who pay for large purchases with cash.”
In one instance, for example, after receiving the blacklist email, Tracy Reneé alleges that she visited a Louis Vuitton store in Beverly Hills, where she was “recognized by a white manager who promptly told her that she was no longer welcome to shop at the store and that she would be arrested if she stayed or returned.” Further emphasizing the disparity in treatment, Williams says that she later sent a white assistant to the same store to purchase the same items, which the assistant was permitted to do.
Brandi Williams claims that she had a similar experience at Louis Vuitton stores, alleging that during a visit to the Beverly Hills store in July 2023, a white manager “falsely and baselessly accused her of spending ‘drug money,’ then ordered her to leave the store under threat of arrest.”
Kristopher Enoch alleges that he also faced discrimination during a shopping trip to the Beverly Hills Louis Vuitton store in September 2022. According to the complaint, Enoch observed store staff show a particular jacket to a non-Black customer, but when that customer declined to purchase it, the jacket was returned to the back of the store. When Enoch asked to buy the same jacket, he was told it was unavailable. Enoch alleges that he spoke with the store manager, who “declined to say why the jacket was not available,” and that he was subsequently denied the opportunity to make the purchase.
This abrupt and complete termination of their customer relationship could have no justification other than their race, according to the plaintiffs, who state that they “are each Black and are perceived as Black, whether racially or ethnically.” And they argue that the “total denial of the right to shop is textbook blacklisting.”
The Fallout: The consequences of Louis Vuitton’s alleged blacklisting extend beyond mere denial of service, the plaintiffs claim. Tracy Reneé Williams, in particular, claims that she built a lucrative social media presence showcasing luxury products, including those from Louis Vuitton. “As a result of being blacklisted from all of the defendants’ stores, including online, Tracy Reneé Williams has been unable to showcase or review Louis Vuitton products,” thereby, leading to a loss of approximately $40,000 per month in revenue.
Williams further alleges that Louis Vuitton misappropriated $50,000 by failing to deliver merchandise she had pre-ordered and paid for in September 2022. Despite accepting her payment, Louis Vuitton allegedly did not provide the items, nor did they refund her money after they blacklisted her. She claims that this was part of a “careful and deliberate plan” to deprive her of the money, which she argues constitutes theft under California law. The lawsuit states that Louis Vuitton fraudulently took the money for its own use and exclusive benefit, with the intent to permanently deprive her of it.
With the foregoing in mind, the plaintiffs have lodged five causes of action against Louis Vuitton, accusing it of Race Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act under California Civil Code § 51; Business Discrimination under California Civil Code § 51.5; Tortious Breach of Contract; and Theft under California Penal Code § 496. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief to address Louis Vuitton’s alleged discriminatory practices. They also ask the court to order a permanent injunction requiring Louis Vuitton to remove any negative information about them from its records and prevent future discrimination.
The case is Tracy Reneé Willimas, Brandi Williams, and Kristopher Enoch v. Louis Vuitton USA Inc, et al., 2:24-cv-7825 (C.D. Cal.)
Share
