Is Hermes leveraging its "monopoly" over handbags to monopolize shawls and belts?

From John Yun:

Aggrieved ... plaintiffs in California have filed a class-action suit against Hermès alleging that [customers are] “coerced” to spend $1,300 on a shawl or $820 on a belt before being “allowed” to hand over an additional $12,000 or more for a Birkin bag...

In antitrust language, the specific allegation is that Hermès is engaged in an illegal tying scheme—where the French company is leveraging its market power in handbags (i.e., the “tying product”) into ancillary goods, such as scarves, belts, jewelry, and shoes (i.e., the “tied products”).

Thus, the Birkin and Kelly bags represent what is called a “single-brand monopoly.” In support of this claim, the complaint identifies Air Jordans and the Love bracelet as other examples of iconic products that, apparently, also have no substitutes.

Of course, this theory makes no economic sense.

if Hermès really wanted to implement a plot to extract more money from its consumers—which is the end goal of a tying scheme—they could do so without tying. Both the Birkin and Kelly bags have a fixed supply because they are handmade. Given the overwhelming excess demand for these bags, it seems fairly clear that Hermès could charge significantly more for them.