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.
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.
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.
Or at least put a monitor running Microsoft.
No, I already get nauseous traveling.
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.
Yeah, lets stare at a blue screen for five hours because the screensaver coded in Electron crashed minutes after takeoff.
It is a seat that is closest to the windows for the row. This is an open and shut case of common fucking sense
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.
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.
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.
Would you defend 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.
If they had marked which particular seats didn’t have actual windows, it’d likely be fine to keep the terminology.
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.