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.
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.