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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (11 children)

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…

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    So jealous of being able to sleep on the plane...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Don’t do this. Then you’ll have to pee and be stuck in your windowless seat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent