Tapestry–Capri: A $8.5 Billion Handbag Merger the FTC Said Would Hurt Workers and Shoppers Alike

A federal district court granted the Federal Trade Commission's request to block Tapestry Inc.'s proposed $8.5 billion acquisition of Capri Holdings Limited, finding that the deal would substantially lessen competition in the market for accessible luxury handbags — a category that includes some of the most widely purchased fashion goods in the American retail market.DOCUMENTED

The ruling was a significant win for the FTC, which had argued that combining Tapestry's portfolio — including Coach and Kate Spade — with Capri's brands — including Michael Kors, Versace, and Jimmy Choo — would give a single company control over too large a share of the accessible luxury segment, to the detriment of both shoppers who buy in that price range and the workers employed by the competing companies.

How the FTC Defined the Market

The central legal question in the case was how to define the relevant market in which competition would be harmed. Tapestry and Capri argued that the handbag market was large and fragmented, with competition from true luxury brands above the accessible segment and from mass-market brands below it — making any concentration in the middle insufficient to harm competition. The FTC argued for a narrower market definition: accessible luxury handbags, a distinct tier of the market where consumers are making aspirational purchases at price points generally ranging from roughly $200 to $600, and where brand prestige and accessibility both matter to buying decisions.DOCUMENTED

The court accepted the FTC's narrower market definition, finding that consumers in the accessible luxury segment are not freely substituting toward ultra-premium brands like Hermès or Chanel, nor toward mass-market options, when making purchasing decisions. The segment has its own competitive dynamics, and within those dynamics, the combined Tapestry-Capri entity would have commanded a substantial share, removing what had previously been independent competitive pressure between the two companies' brands.REVIEWED

The Worker Competition Argument

One of the distinctive features of the FTC's case was its explicit argument about labor market competition — an argument that reflected the agency's expanded approach to antitrust enforcement under Chair Lina Khan. The FTC argued that Tapestry and Capri competed not only for customers but for the workers they employ: designers, retail associates, marketers, and other staff. When two employers in the same industry combine, the agency argued, workers lose the ability to move between competing employers to improve their wages or conditions, because one of those employers no longer exists as an independent alternative.DOCUMENTED

This labor market argument was not the primary basis for the court's ruling, but its inclusion in the FTC's case reflected a deliberate expansion of the antitrust framework beyond the consumer welfare standard that has dominated U.S. antitrust enforcement for decades. The FTC under Khan pursued a theory that antitrust law protects competitive dynamics in labor markets as well as product markets, and the Tapestry-Capri case was one of the venues in which that argument was tested in litigation.REVIEWED

Antitrust law, applied here, reached beyond the price of a handbag to ask who competed for the workers who made the sale.

The Injunction and the Abandonment

The court issued a preliminary injunction in October 2024, blocking the deal from closing while the underlying antitrust litigation proceeded. Tapestry and Capri had agreed to extend their merger agreement multiple times as the litigation progressed, but following the preliminary injunction, Tapestry announced it was walking away from the deal. Capri, which had been operating under deal uncertainty for more than a year, faced the prospect of returning to independent operation in a challenging retail environment following its brands' performance during the period the merger was pending.DOCUMENTED

The collapse of the deal had significant financial consequences for both companies. Tapestry had incurred substantial transaction costs and management attention costs over the course of the attempted acquisition. Capri, whose stock had traded at levels reflecting the merger premium, saw its share price fall sharply when the deal collapsed. Shareholders who had purchased Capri stock at or near the merger price found themselves holding a substantially depreciated asset.

Significance for Accessible Luxury Retail

The Tapestry-Capri case is significant as a data point in how regulators approach consolidation in the consumer goods and retail sector. The decision to challenge the merger — and the court's willingness to accept the FTC's market definition — suggests that the accessible luxury segment is legally meaningful as a competitive unit, not simply a marketing category. This has implications for future consolidation attempts in fashion retail, particularly at price points where brand prestige matters but where brands are still accessible to a broad middle-market consumer base.REVIEWED

The case also illustrates the difficulty that merging parties face when regulators are prepared to litigate rather than negotiate consent decrees. Both Tapestry and Capri had likely anticipated the regulatory process and factored FTC review into their deal timeline, but the depth of the agency's objection — and its willingness to take the case to court rather than settle for behavioral remedies — ultimately proved decisive. When the preliminary injunction issued, the deal could not survive the additional litigation period that would have been required to complete a full trial on the merits.

What Comes Next for Both Companies

In the aftermath of the failed merger, both Tapestry and Capri returned to operating as independent public companies with distinct strategic challenges. Tapestry's Coach brand remained the dominant revenue contributor, while Kate Spade had been operating below its earlier performance levels. Capri faced more acute challenges, with Michael Kors — its largest brand — having experienced significant revenue decline in the period leading into and through the merger process, and Versace and Jimmy Choo both carrying challenging unit economics relative to what the combined entity had promised investors.REVIEWED

For consumers in the accessible luxury handbag market, the blocking of the merger meant that the competitive landscape remained one with multiple independent owners of major brands. Whether that translates into meaningfully better pricing or product choices depends on how intensely those independent brands compete for the same consumer, and the FTC's market analysis suggested that competition had been genuine prior to the proposed deal.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.