United Airlines is preparing for a class-action lawsuit after a US federal judge denied its request to dismiss claims from passengers who allege they paid a premium for 'window seats' that did not, in fact, feature a window. The legal challenge, which also names Delta Air Lines, centres on accusations that the airlines failed to inform customers during the booking process that certain 'window seats' on specific Boeing 737s, 757s, and Airbus A321s are situated next to a blank cabin wall rather than an actual window.
Judge James Donato, presiding in San Francisco, rejected United's contention that the term 'window seat' solely denotes a seat's position and does not imply a guaranteed external view. The judge also dismissed United's argument that federal law precluded the passengers' claims, highlighting that the airline's own ticketing terms, boarding passes, and reservation screens explicitly promised window seats to those who paid for them. United Airlines has declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, though it did state that it enhanced its seat selection process in 2025 to provide customers with more detailed information about their chosen seats as part of a regular review.
Delta Air Lines is also actively seeking to have its own proposed class-action lawsuit dismissed in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York. The lawsuits, initially filed in August, seek millions of pounds in damages on behalf of over one million passengers. Plaintiffs have cited various reasons for their preference for a window seat, including alleviating anxiety, reducing motion sickness, and simply enjoying the scenic views during their journey.
Attorney Carter Greenbaum, who has represented plaintiffs against both airlines, previously stated in November that United's position was '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.' United, in court documents, maintained that it never promised an outside view with a 'window' seat, despite identifying them as such on booking platforms.
The airline's legal argument asserted that 'the word 'window' identifies the position of the seat—i.e., next to the wall of the main body of the aircraft,' and that 'the use of the word 'window' in reference to a particular seat cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view.' This stance underscores the core dispute over the interpretation of a common aviation term and its implications for consumer expectations and rights.