Passengers Sue United Airlines After Paying Extra For Window Seats Without Windows
Passengers who say they paid extra for window seats but ended up beside solid cabin walls can continue pursuing their lawsuit against United Airlines, after a federal judge refused to throw out the case on Monday.
The proposed class action, filed in August against United, centers on passengers who said they selected seats marketed as window seats on Boeing 737 and Boeing 757 aircraft, only to find that the seats had no actual windows. Similar claims were also brought against Delta Air Lines over windowless seats on Airbus A321 planes.
According to the plaintiffs, travelers often choose window seats for reasons beyond preference, including to help with fear of flying or motion sickness, keep children occupied, get more light during a flight, or simply look outside. They allege that United and Delta failed to clearly disclose during the booking process that some seats positioned along the aircraft wall did not actually offer a window view,” attorney Casey Olbrantz said in an email to NBC when the proposed lawsuits were being prepared.
“We’re seeking to hold United and Delta accountable for an unfair and misleading business practice they could fix overnight.”
The lawsuits seek millions of dollars in damages and could cover more than 1 million passengers for each airline. Carter Greenbaum, an attorney representing passengers in the United and Delta cases, previously said United’s position ran “contrary to the reasonable expectations of countless passengers who unknowingly paid extra money for windowless window seats.”
“Consumers deserve better than empty promises and United’s word games.”
US district judge James Donato in San Francisco rejected United’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit, including the airline’s argument that “window” described the seat’s placement in the cabin — next to the wall and away from the aisle — rather than a promise that the seat would include an actual window or outside view.
In addressing that argument, Donato wrote that “the points are not well taken.”
Donato also rejected United’s contention that passengers’ claims were blocked by federal law. In allowing the breach-of-contract claims to proceed, the judge pointed to United’s ticketing terms, boarding passes and reservation screens, which he said expressly stated that the airline “would provide window seats to passengers who paid for them.”
“No more is needed at this stage for the breach claims to go forward.”
The lawsuit notes that some aircraft seats are placed beside walls because of the location of operating components inside the plane, including air conditioning ducts, which can prevent windows from being installed in certain rows.
Those windowless rows can also result from customized seating layouts or fixed fuselage design requirements that leave a row misaligned with a physical window. Other possible obstructions include electrical wiring, emergency equipment, load-bearing framework, and emergency-exit placements, including over-wing exit areas, which can shift how rows line up with the aircraft’s windows.
United, which is based in Chicago, declined to comment on the lawsuit itself. However, the airline said it has “added more detail to our seat selection process, so customers can have more information about what to expect when they choose a seat.”
Greenbaum also framed the dispute around the rise of paid add-ons, saying: “As airlines have begun charging for services that were once free, passengers should at least expect upfront disclosure of the fees and that if they pay an extra fee, they will get the product they paid for.”
Delta, meanwhile, is seeking dismissal of the separate lawsuit against it in federal court in Brooklyn, New York.
Moumita Basuroychowdhury is a Contributing Reporter at The National Digest. After earning an economics degree at Cornell University, she moved to NYC to pursue her MFA in creative writing. She enjoys reporting on science, business and culture news. You can reach her at moumita.b@thenationaldigest.com.