In August 2025, two nearly identical lawsuits were filed: one against United (in San Francisco federal court) and one against Delta Air Lines (in Brooklyn federal court). They claim that each airline sold more than one million “window seats” on aircraft such as the Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321, many of which are next to blank fuselage walls rather than windows.
Passengers say they paid seat-selection fees (commonly $30 to $100+) expecting a view, sunlight, or the comfort of a genuine window seat — and say they would not have booked or paid extra had they known the seat lacked a window.
As reported by Reuters, United’s filing argues that it never promised a view when it used the label “window” for a seat. According to the airline, “window” refers only to the seat’s location next to the aircraft wall, not a guarantee of an exterior view.
Maybe they should use AI to tell them what a fucking window is. If it only promises a fuselage seat then it should say fuselage seat and not window seat. Friggin scammers.
Are their no small claims tribunals in the US? This refund would be over so quickly in Australia and no doubt the ACCC would be on their arse.
We barely do anything about monopolies here these these days, but at least false advertising and right to refunds are rock solid.
Also, those seat selection fees are crazy. International flights I’ve seen like $8, maybe $15 if you’re getting really crazy.
Who in the world is paying $100 to select their seat?
Seat selection, and it seems like every other friggin extra airline fee in the US, seems to be based on how full the flight is and how much people are willing to pay for it. 90% sure they are experimenting with it to the point where that fee will change just by refreshing the page and they likely have everything from $5-$200 ‘upgrade’ fees based on what they’ve found they can get away with. Hell, I’m surprised they haven’t started auctioning the seats while waiting to board. Maybe just typing this was a bad idea.
There are small claims courts in the US.
Its a pain in the ass and you can’t get extra damages or anything like that. So the most people would be entitled to was the 30-100 bucks they overpaid for their seat. It would also require each claimant to spend hours of their life preparing and doing it.
So instead they do class action, so it can all be on trial and anyone in the class can apply for a refund quickly if they win.
Conversely, if you file small claims against a large corporation, chances are they won’t show up and you’ll win by default. But yeah it would take more time than it’s worth. So really it would only be out of spite.
As soon as you can have a president tell people news is fake because he doesn’t like it, words have no meaning and this is the result of interpretation in an authoritarian environment. The customer or end user has no recourse and there’s is no loyalty or trust with the brand.
I agree with the sentiment but this definitely didn’t begin with Dump. We’ve been getting increasingly fucked by corpos for decades, Cheeto is just the most recent.
Yeah, but Democrats were at least doing things like creating the Consumer Protection Bureau (which Trump has since killed)
It’s the most blatant bullshit, not just the most recent. It’s past the point where it should be believable. Passing it off as “just the most recent” feels very both sides to me but maybe that’s just how I’m reading it.
As someone who picks a window seat specifically for the view I agree the airline websites need to make this clearer but it’s super common to allow for air ducts in the plane. If you check the seat map on Aerolopa this is easily avoided (except when there’s an aircraft swap). Avoid SeatGuru, it’s often very outdated and even when correct for seats the window positions are incorrect.
If the seat doesn’t include a window then it needs to be called a wall seat. This is an open and shut case of false advertising.
Or at least put a monitor running Microsoft.
At one point in my career, they moved us to a long white room with no windows. (The reason this particular room on this floor did not have windows was that on the wall, where the windows normally would have been were large external letters on the outside of the building spelling out the original name of the building. So of course you couldn’t have windows behind the externally mounted letters.) And their attempt at making it bearable was to put giant vinyl stickers of somewhat cartoonish window scenes along the big long outside white wall. I did not enjoy working in that space.
At least they tried
ah yes the fresh taste of that (checks notes) vinyl sticker air
Ah polyvinyl chloride - reminds me of my childhood days playing in a freshly blown up paddling pool.
No, I already get nauseous traveling.
Yeah, lets stare at a blue screen for five hours because the screensaver coded in Electron crashed minutes after takeoff.
They’ll try and argue that it’s just the generic term that is most familiar to their customers, not a specific definition of what you will find if you take that seat. “Aisle” “middle” and “window” are just commonly-accepted shorthand for the first, second, and third seats in a row, not prescriptive definitions.
Source: I once worked for a Extended Warranty company and they do the exact same crap. The product they sold is a service contract, it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually extending your existing warranty. But they were allowed to keep calling it an “extended warranty” and use that term predominantly and market off it, because that is the term that is in common usage for the product they sell. All they had to do was add tiny text at the bottom of the site that said “A service contract is often referred to as an “extended car warranty,” but it is not a warranty.” 🤣🤣🤣 At worst, the airlines will have to do something like that.
It is a seat that is closest to the windows for the row. This is an open and shut case of common fucking sense
If they had marked which particular seats didn’t have actual windows, it’d likely be fine to keep the terminology.
I promise the airlines don’t need you defending them on lemmy.
Not defending them, and don’t care. There are a bunch of self righteous people on here who think they’re coming up with a profound statement when it’s just common sense they need.
Every window used to have a window. Then airlines decided to cram more seats inside without adjusting the number of windows. Common sense says you change the fucking name of the thing you’re selling, because of course people are going to continue thinking of what used to be true as the reason, not some hamdisted attempt to argue your way out of liability for your lies.
If you don’t care then don’t respond to me Mr common sense.
Awww. Did my response hurt your little fefes? You need your window to feel like you got what you deserve?
What? I don’t know what this means.
deleted by creator
Would you have the same opinion it if they didn’t include a seat either? Since there are two words at play here and we’re apparently making gross allowances for meaning in one could we do the other? Would it be acceptable if they placed you near the area with a seat?
"Seat” refers only to the location allocated near to a row of seats, not a guarantee of actual place to sit.
What kind of legal linguistic creep are we going to tolerate under this heading of “common fucking sense”?
That isn’t what the name implies. Way to move goalposts. You should work for united.
Some people are claustrophobic and having a window to look out makes a ton of difference. A middle seat isn’t an option they can handle and while an aisle seat is preferred, a window seat is tolerable provided it actually has a window. Personally I don’t care but knowing someone that is quite claustrophobic, this would be a big deal for them.
I know you are getting downvoted, but I call the seat furthest from the aisle the “window” seat no matter what is on the “far” side of it.
So, I think it’s entirely possible that United wins this case in front of a judge. If it gets decided by a jury, I’d expect at least one person of the 12 (or so) to insist that “window seat” means there has to be a window.
So, basically they’re trying to get us ready for these standing seats.
The regulatory requirements to make standing airline seats possible have not been met in either Europe or North America, and they’re unlikely to ever be satisfied—unless government oversight finally becomes so corrupt and useless that this concept is forced through.
Under this administration?
unless government oversight finally becomes so corrupt and useless that this concept is forced through.
So next week, you’re saying?
Standing is a historical torture method.
Must we now also pay for the privilege?
Sweet, I have chronic pain in my foot and back and will likely have to fly several times a year again. I likely can’t use these seats. So many people can’t use these. I feel so bad for the elderly they’ll try to strap in these.
“War is peace”
That’s what they are trying to pull. Look it up.
According to the airline, “window” refers only to the seat’s location next to the aircraft wall
Then call it “wall seat”
It’s like trying to call the non runway parts of airports ramps, aprons and taxiways. Because technically none of it is made with tarmac anymore but the general population is too stupid to go back so now that’s what it’s all called.
Yeah, but they’re not charging people extra for parts they’re calling tarmac or ramps, and literally no one knows that tarmac is the material used. On the other hand, people know what a window is, and are willing to pay more to sit next to one.
I don’t think the public would be confused if they called the windowless seat a wall seat and made attempts to clarify. They could even warn the buyer when they select the seat.
I don’t understand your gripe here. What’s wrong with those terms?
Exactly!
This is so fucking dumb. It has that “boneless wings can contain bones” judgement energy from Ohio awhile back. 🤦🏻
That case does at least make some sense. All meat products can contain bone due to them being from you know animals.
Basically they felt that encountering bones in a meat product is a normal, acceptable, and understood risk.
Now if he was give a plate of boneless wings and each wing was full of bones that would be a different case entirely.
This was an inadvertent bone fragment. Can happen in any meat product.
My issue with boneless wings is that they are not Wing meat at all. They’re chicken tits.
“Hey, just callin to check in with ya! I’m sittin here with two breasts in my hands…chicken breasts! BIG HEARTY LAUGH!!!”
Isnt the drumstick, which is most people’s preferred “wing”, actually the thigh part of a chicken?
deleted by creator
Lol look at this BS. A bone is, still, a bone. Unless ur a vet
no. boneless means without bones. there’s no “acceptable risk” when the package says there’s no risk.
Doesn’t matter, now places can sell fully boned pieces as “boneless” without the labor of removing the bone and at the higher price of actually boneless pieces.
No that’s not what the judges ruled at all or how civil cases work.
Civil cases do not set precedent in this way. Yes they can be used to support other cases, but in civil court each case is examined through it’s own merits.
Even if it did work the way you suggested (it doesn’t but for fun), this ruling would only apply to the state of Ohio since it was ruled on by that state’s court. Meaning companies would then have to produce Ohio exclusive boneless wings with bones and distribute them only in Ohio. Which would be not only be expensive, but also ensure their customers stop buying their product.
Yup as soon as this happened all the restaurants stopped removing bones from the wings and now boneless wings are impossible to get thanks to this ruling we are famished
Had a McDonald’s chicken nugget the other day. Entirely bone.
The little boot nugget even still had chicken toe bones.
Pizza is a vegetable
I am so tempted to open a wing shop in Columbus and wait for a Justice to come in so I could serve them boned “boneless style” wings.
It has that “boneless wings can contain bones” judgement energy from Ohio awhile back
I’d be with ya, but the ‘may’ here happens through error; not through deception.
I didn’t follow that story, but if it was over some suit over bone chips, I’d donlt think that it’d be analogous. Normally, “boneless wings” are less-desirable than regular wings. Boneless wings are just reconstituted chicken, so you can use scraps and stuff for them. It’s kind of like the relationship between steak and hamburger.
But with hamburger, you can occasionally have a bone chip make it in.
That’s in contrast to a window seat, where a window seat is often considered to be preferable, and someone not getting one would feel like they’re being mislead as to the actual value of what they’re getting.
Like, I wouldn’t expect truth-in-advertising issues to come up with boneless chicken; you wouldn’t likely wouldn’t get boneless chicken wings because of an aversion to bone or something, where that’s your main goal.
kagis
Yeah:
It doesn’t sound like it’s a false advertising case with the chicken, but a product safety one.
I disagree with the ruling because the bone in question was described as “long, thin”. If it was just bone chips, then it wouldn’t have caused the complainant issues. Because of that description I think the liability should (ultimately) be on the party the was responsible for deboning the chicken.
I could be wrong about how liability cases work, but I think the Ohio case should have held the restaurant liable for the complainant’s injury/distress but allow their findings to be carried into a suit from the restaurant against the supplier of the bag of boneless wings.
No deboning process is going to be perfect, but that’s what liability insurance is for. I do think no “long, thin” bones should make it through a reliable deboning process, tho.
Cool. So since the government is going to side with this bullshit: I say that “income tax” doesn’t mean a tax on my income.
This scam already exists. That’s why Jeff Bezos pays a much lower rate on what is - bullshit aside - his income.
Since I don’t technically ‘come’ ‘inside’, so I won’t pay it
Avoiding being forced to buy a minivan, I see. Clever you. 🤌🏼
Sprinter or a Transit. Not a minivan. Full sized van. Heck an Econoline 1500 or similar conversion vans would work if they still made conversion vans.
The agreement was im paying 355 dolars for a window seat. If ‘window seat’ just refers to the location, then dolars just refers to the fact its an amount of currency, and ill have my bank adjust the payment to reflect that was in pesos.
By dollars, I mean Zimbabwe dollars
And this is why the civil court system is just plain broken. Despite the astronomical cost of taking this upsurd stance in court, it is worth it. Thier needs to be damages assesed for the absurdity of the logic used to force something to cost more court time than it should get.
dismiss with prejudice/disbar the lawyers that push these lawsuits at all
course, there are plenty of rigged court systems in the US that justify their whole existence via these sham lawsuits, so…
Yup. Make it 10x actual damages for this kind of bullshit. Then they’ll stop, maybe.
That’s punitive damages, but they aren’t punitive enough to discourage this behavior. The courts don’t work for us.
Thier needs
Whose?
I remember back when the seats actually aligned with the windows on airplanes, such that you could sit in a seat and look out the window.
Then they started shoving more rows of seats in. Over the past 20 years or so, I’ve often got a “window seat” where the nearest window is positioned directly beside the seat in front, where nobody can open or close the cover without fully reclining (ha) the seat, and there’s zero view because of the angle.
Technically still a window seat, as there IS a window nearby, but not what you’d expect coming from any other mode or era of transport.
In my experience the window also isn’t usable from the window seat unless you’re really short. And the way the fuselage curves up at the side, there’s also no shoulder room.
To me:
Window seat has lack of shoulder room - bad.
Middle seat had 2 arm rests that I have to shrimp to rest my arms on - bad.
Aisle seat has 1 (bad) arm rest, but has shoulder and leg room - good.I don’t care about window seats AT ALL
Yeah but none of the seats have shoulder room. I’ll take squished shoulders over getting hit by the drink cart every time
And newer planes all have windows where the tint is controlled by the crew (so as to minimize conflict between passengers) which… I still like to look out while stretching my legs near the bathroom but pretty sure staring out a ridiculously tinted window at some clouds isn’t what people think of when they hear “window seat”.
Like… I kinda agree that “window seat” doesn’t actually mean you have a window these days. I would argue that they should be renamed but “wall seat” is going to just make people realize why aisle seats are the best choice… and I like my aisle seat so piss off.
I rode a 787 intercontinentally for the first time earlier this year and was very disappointed by the forced tint. I was really excited to see, I believe, the arctic ice cap. Nothing. Like, I get it’s a long flight and apparently most people just take drugs and sleep, but damn. I would have shielded it with my jacket anyway.
But even still, know how I deal with wanting to nod off when a 4am flight hits day break? A $6 sleep mask. I’m not affected by windows, reading lamps, the crew flicking the lights for fun, that one person typing in Word at full brightness on a red eye flight, or people using flashlights to search their bag.
That’s fine. I’ll take wall seat, as long as I’m not paying extra for a window that doesn’t exist. As a big and tall guy, wall seat means the drink cart doesn’t hit my shoulder because of how narrow the seats are. It means I don’t have to struggle out of my seat every time someone in the row needs to use the bathroom
reminds me of this meme:
I too have a photo like that. ER-175J (OO) if I remember correctly.
“Sweet window seat, bro”
United, probably
Would a reasonable person assume that is what it meant? Probably not. United should lose this case.
Any person that saw an aircraft from the inside before probably. Some window seats are in between two windows, so technically they’re double window seats.
cut and dry
Wouldn’t that be the definition of, “Bait and switch”??? Which is already illegal?
You PAY EXTRA for a WINDOW SEAT and there’s no window?! Why would someone pay more then? What would be the point of paying more if there’s no “window” seems very cut and dry! That’s like paying extra for an aisle seat and get a middle seat, that’s NEVER in question, they are just trying to get people’s money! Savages!
This just proves don’t fly United nor Delta… which they are already super high priced anyways…
The main reason I like window seats isn’t because of the window, it’s because I can fall into deep sleep and nobody will wake me up because they need to get out and pee.
So jealous of being able to sleep on the plane…
Try drinking more
Don’t do this. Then you’ll have to pee and be stuck in your windowless seat.
Small price to pay for sweet sweet airplane sleep.
Don’t pee in your dreams.
- United
I took edibles before flying once. Slept across the Atlantic and then a bit more on the connecting flight.
Lol yeah little counterproductive in the long run
Well, yeah, that’s what the controversy is. They’re saying “window seat” implies sitting in the opposite of the aisle, not necessarily having a window. (Which is BS. People take it to mean window.) So they’re saying it’s not a bait and switch.
Yeah, while I do fully believe the deception was intentional, even if that argument is accepted, it better be a decision that involves a “now it’s on the record that that’s how it’s interpreted so stop it or the next one won’t go so well for you”.
If you don’t live in USA then I think yes that would be true, but in USA I’d imagine you’re out of luck since I don’t think USA is known for having the strongest consumer protections possible.
I mean, don’t charge extra for something then not deliver it. Seems cut and dry.
If the aisle/middle/window in coach all cost the same price then no one would have any standing to sue. The airlines charged customers extra. They did this to themselves.
Ironically, that could be the technicality they’re banking on. They aren’t charging for the window seat - they’re charging for the ability to select your own seat which is the same regardless of where you select.
Delta not only charges you for the privilege of selecting your own seats, but charges you for the “preferred” aisle or window seat.
Here’s a flight in January 2026 to Atlanta:
And here’s the seat key denoting the aisle and window seats as “preferred”
No, I think any seat change costs the same price, no matter if you switch from window to somewhere, or from somewhere to window.
