The internet was frenzied when Walmart put up what many call a Birkin “dupe”—the “Wirkin” for only $78. Working-class shoppers lauded the chance to possess a luxury symbol, joking that “the ‘Wirkin’ is for the Wirkin class.” An estimated 12,000 to 70,000 Birkin bags are made each year, with merely 200,000 existing overall. The bag’s price starts at a whopping $10,000. The Hermès Birkin’s exclusivity is not only about design but also about protecting the Birkin’s mystique and controlling who “deserves” to possess it. The Wirkin controversy reveals a relationship between dupe culture and late-stage capitalism, characterized by intensified wealth inequality, corporate dominance, and the commodification of basic aspects of life: dupes offer the illusion of access to luxury while reinforcing the class exclusivity that keeps luxury goods out of reach.
The Birkin has long served not merely as a handbag but as a ritual of access. Prospective buyers do not simply walk into Hermès and purchase one; they must be vetted, wait, and often have to build a prior purchase record with the brand. A reseller of collectible luxury handbags, Madison Avenue Couture, claimed that to have the highest chances of success in obtaining a Birkin, one has to cultivate a relationship with a Hermès sales associate, wear suitable attire (preferably in Hermès clothing), demonstrate knowledge of the Hermès line, and establish a purchasing history of likely thousands of dollars. Due to this arduous process, carrying a Birkin bag means broadcasting cultural and economic acceptance into a high-status, wealthy inner circle. When a lookalike appeared at Walmart, the reverse became true: A symbol of exclusion became available in an environment designed for mass consumption—the very antithesis of the Birkin.
Still, the paradox of dupe culture is that imitation affirms what it claims to subvert. The existence of the Wirkin depends on the Birkin’s exclusivity. The dupe can only stimulate desire and meaning because the original is scarce and status-bearing. In an era of late-stage capitalism, even imitation becomes a form of participation: The economic system absorbs rebellion and resells it as aspiration. What appears as resistance to luxury—the democratization of status through the dupe—actually ensures that the cycle of desire, consumption, and distinction continues unbroken.
Consider the response: After going viral, many of the Wirkin listings mysteriously vanished from Walmart’s online marketplace. Although the disappearance of the Wirkin from Walmart’s site remains speculative, legal experts believe the removal came after a legal threat from Hermès; the controversy could have threatened to tarnish Hermès’ image by diluting its trademark and eroding the exclusivity that underpins the Birkin’s prestige by associating the luxury brand with an inferior product. This suggests an underlying tension: Viral attention draws eyes and sales, but it invites reputational risks for both Walmart and the luxury brand.
While dupe companies scramble to profit while avoiding legal barriers, original brands will capitalize on the opportunity to seize control. In 2023, Lululemon launched a “dupe swap” where they invited customers to trade imitation leggings for real ones. The stunt implicitly conceded that dupes are unavoidable, but it also reinforced the hierarchy: Compared side by side, the original product will always win out. A similar story unfolded in the beauty market. Charlotte Tilbury’s Pillow Talk lipstick, replicated by e.l.f. and NYX in nearly identical shades, went viral on TikTok under the #dupe tag. Yet the original’s cultural dominance only expanded; the Pillow Talk line has since evolved into one of Tilbury’s best-selling franchises. Industry data support this symbiotic dynamic; both affordable “duper” brands and the higher-priced “duped” brands experienced increases in dollar sales and buyers between July 2022 and July 2023. The endurance of luxury brands in the face of risky imitation proves how dupe culture ultimately reproduces, rather than disrupts, systems of status and authenticity.
At stake is the larger question: Who determines what counts as culture, legitimacy, and taste? When Hermès CEO Axel Dumas described the Wirkin as “irritating,” he reframed the dupe debate as one of artistry and ethics rather than class. Other luxury brands often do the same. Critiques of dupe culture and fast fashion—whether it be for their environmental harm or disregard for craftsmanship—are not unfounded. Yet, they also blur into marketing—turning ideals like sustainability and craft into badges of distinction that reaffirm luxury’s cultural authority.
But buyers should not be fooled. Even some of the luxury brands that trumpet sustainability and moral distinction have been accused of copying independent creators. Chanel, for instance, was called out by Scottish knitwear designer Mati Ventrillon after elements of her Fair Isle designs appeared nearly identically in Chanel’s Métiers d’Art collection. Chanel later apologized and vowed to credit Ventrillon’s designs. Meanwhile, independent designer Romeo Hunte alleged that Burberry’s Spring-Summer 2021 line replicated key motifs from his Spring-Summer 2020 collections, which drew attention specifically because Burberry positions itself as a steward of heritage and craftsmanship. These contradictions show how sustainability and artistry can become moral veneers that enable luxury brands to preserve their authority while appearing ethically superior.
In practice, these defenses conceal a deeper motive to keep class gates intact. The critique of dupe culture is not just about copying stitches or polluting the planet—it is about preserving who gets to participate in high-status rituals. The Walmart Birkin makes this clear: What appears to democratize luxury instead intensifies its prestige. The Wirkin, instead, reminds consumers seeking inclusion and validation through these purchases of all that remains out of reach. Dupe culture thus becomes a microcosm of late capitalism itself, which thrives on selling the feeling of access—on convincing consumers that aspiration alone is participation, even when inequality remains unchanged.