Fashion Law & Luxury M&A: How Antitrust Is Reshaping the Future of Accessible Luxury
Fashion Law & Luxury M&A: How Antitrust Is Reshaping the Future of Accessible Luxury
17th November 2025
By Summer LIU, Contributor
The global fashion industry is evolving beyond traditional haute couture and mass retail, giving rise to a rapidly expanding middle segment: accessible luxury. Brands such as Coach, Michael Kors, and Kate Spade offer quality, storytelling, and status at attainable price points—typically between $300 and $1,000.
In 2024, this growing category collided with U.S. antitrust law when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) blocked the proposed $8.5 billion merger between Tapestry Inc. and Capri Holdings. The landmark ruling raised an important question for both fashion and legal professionals: can brand identity define a market?
Tapestry-Capri Holding. A New Regulatory Approach to Accessible Luxury
Historically, luxury mergers faced little regulatory resistance. Large European groups such as LVMH and Kering expanded under the assumption that luxury brands operate in one broad global market.
The Tapestry–Capri case challenged this view.
The FTC argued that handbags priced between $300 and $1,000 form a distinct submarket because consumers identify emotionally with accessible luxury brands. The Southern District of New York agreed, recognizing “accessible luxury handbags” as a legitimate competitive market and naming Coach and Michael Kors as direct rivals.
The decision highlighted a shift: regulators now consider brand positioning and consumer perception—not just price or product features—when defining markets.
How Consumer Perception Shapes Competition in Fashion: Insights from Behavioral Economics
Traditional antitrust analysis relies on market share, price elasticity, and structural indicators. But these frameworks do not fully capture the cultural and emotional power of brands. Accessible luxury buyers make decisions guided by aspiration and identity.
The FTC embraced this behavioral perspective, arguing that shoppers view Coach and Michael Kors as substitutes, even though they do not compare them with fast-fashion brands like Zara or ultra-luxury houses such as Hermès.
This signals a broader trend:
future antitrust cases in fashion may rely increasingly on brand psychology and consumer behavior, not just financial data.
US vs EU Antitrust in Fashion: What Global Luxury Brands Need to Know
While the United States is taking a stricter stance, European and Asian regulators remain more flexible.
- The European Commission often treats luxury as a unified market, approving deals like LVMH–Tiffany with limited scrutiny.
- Asian authorities rarely challenge mergers in the fashion sector.
This regulatory divergence creates new strategic considerations for global brands. The Tapestry–Capri case shows how legal geography can impact business decisions as much as design or marketing strategies.
The Future of Fashion Law: What the Tapestry–Capri Case Means for Luxury M&A
The key takeaway for fashion and luxury companies is clear: law now plays a more active role in shaping brand strategy. Any future merger, acquisition, or collaboration will require a deeper understanding of how regulators interpret brand tiers and consumer psychology.
For students and emerging professionals in fashion law, luxury management, and business, this case illustrates how policy, branding, and behavioral economics increasingly intersect in today’s industry landscape.
Key Takeaways for Fashion Law, Luxury Management, and the Accessible Luxury Market
The Tapestry–Capri ruling demonstrates that even in a creative sector like fashion, competition law is becoming a central strategic factor. As accessible luxury continues to grow, regulators, brands, and consumers are collectively redefining the meaning of luxury—and the rules that govern it.
