Last week I wrote that a class action lawsuit would be coming against United for charging passengers extra to sit in window seats that didn’t exist. They were the seats next to the fuselage, they were marketed as windows, but there was no cutout to see outside.

For instance, seat 11A is labeled window by United on their Boeing 737‑900 despite there being no actual window. Windowless “window” seats exist across Boeing 737 variants (row 10A/11A/12A depending on ducting) and Airbus A321 family aircraft. This is common to see in social media:

How can you market this as a window seat @united pic.twitter.com/JbqG9FFrkG

— cam (@vordhosbn___) August 19, 2025

The lawsuit against United was filed yesterday, August 19th (Brenman & Copaken v. United Airlines, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:25‑cv‑06995‑PHK) alleging breach of contract and implied contract and seeking public injunctive relief.

• United knows they’re doing this. Their social media team responds to posts about the gap between the promise on the seat map, selling seat assignments, and the reality of the cabin.

• In contrast, American and Alaska warn on their seat maps that certain “window” positions have “no window view” and charge less accordingly.

The named plaintiffs paid for flights with window seat assignments and got no window.

• Aviva Copaken reports paying $45.99 to $169.99 on three LAX departures for “window” seats – United later refunded two fees following complaints but not the third.
  
• Marc Brenman redeemed miles for a window seat from San Francisco to D.C. (a poor value even when getting an actual window) – he was refunded 7,500 miles, which Brennan says is insufficient.

The suit seeks a nationwide class of anyone who paid extra for a “window” seat but got a windowless seat as well as a California subclass. It argues that United voluntarily promised a “Window” seat in exchange for a fee and breached when the seat had no window; that the “Window” designation became part of the ticket but United didn’t deliver what it sold; that the window was part of an implied contract; and that selling “window” seats without windows is unfair and deceptive.

It seems reasonable to demand that customers who paid for window seats and did not receive windows should be refunded, and this is something that United can accomplish based on booking and payments data.

However,

• The Airline Deregulation Act preempts state consumer protection claims that enlarge obligations “related to a price, route, or service.” Pure breach of contract claims enforcing the airline’s own promises can proceed.

• Under Northwest v. Ginsberg (2014) implied covenant claims that add duties beyond the written contract are pre-empted.

• United does offer disclaimers that seat assignments and features aren’t guaranteed (but still, a refund should be due for non-performance…) and that aircraft and seat maps may change.

• And class actions are waived under contract of carriage and MileagePlus and primary jurisdiction over whether labels like “window” are unfair and deceptive in air travel marketing sits within DOT’s authority to regulate such practices and courts may be likely to defer..

So what is a window seat? Does it mean the customer paid to have a window, or is it just a seat location? Ultimately, the word “window” in what United sells does seem like a specific, enforceable term.

I also do not see grounds for an injunction since there’s no likelihood of future harm to the named plaintiffs who surely know at this point not to book and pay for these specific seats on United.

• The injunction request is precisely targeted at caselaw in the Ninth Circuit that says it cannot be preempted.
  
• And California courts do not follow the Federal Arbitration Act the same way federal courts do when it comes to enforcing class action waivers in adhesion contracts.

And I’m also not sure that there’s much exposure here for punitive damages, but I’m looking for readers more familiar with the law to weigh in.

For this to go anywhere they’ve got to overcome federal pre-emption, overcome class action waivers, get certified as a class and show damages. Those are high hurdles to clear. My guess is that odds of success are low even though United is clearly in the wrong here.

It turns out, though, that there’s also a companion lawsuit that’s been filed against Delta in New York.

Plaintiff Nicholas Meyer bought New York LaGuardia – Atlanta – Orange County on August 16, 2025 (timing makes it obvious that this purchase was to prime the lawsuit). Seat 23F on Delta flight 826 to Orange County on a Boeing 757 was windowless. The Delta pleading further leans on customer posts to social media reporting refund denials.

What’s interesting here is that the Delta case is a single claim for breach of contract. There’s no “implied contract” claim that could be pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act. And there’s no attempt to seek an injunction as an end-run around the class action waiver (which wouldn’t be available under New York law anyway, as I understand it).

But – and here’s where my non-expert status in such matters really kicks in – I think that asking for punitive damages on a contract claim in New York is harder, since it would normally require an independent tort with public wrong that doesn’t seem to exist here.

It seems to me that the Delta claim is stronger against federal pre-emption, but weaker on getting certified as a class action and on punitive damage.

I’d love for subject matter experts to weigh in on the comments with more informed views than mine.