United Airlines is being sued for selling window seats without windows. And in a big blow to the airline, they lost their motion to dismiss on Monday, July 6, 2026.
The airline sells some seats next to the fuselage that don’t have windows beside them. Customers are paying seat assignmnet fees expecting to look out the window but they can only look at the interior wall of the cabin.
United has had two major arguments in its defense:
- The Airline Deregulation Act preempts this lawsuit. You can’t sue under an airline under state law over ‘prices, schedules, or service’ and a paid window seat is a priced service. But United expressly labeled this as a window seat to sell it and did not deliver that so they lost this argument – you don’t need to go beyond the basic airline offer to realize that they did not fulfill their promise.
- A window seat doesn’t require a window, it’s actually just an industry term for the location of the seat relative to the cabin wall. An aisle seat is next to the aisle. A middle seat is between two seats. And a window seat is next to the wall. This is weak because it’s not just an internal label, United actually sold the seats labeled as ‘window seats’ which tells customers they will be beside the window. And they didn’t need to do this, in fact they’ve since started flagging seats with no window (but not clearly enough that customers aren’t still confused).
For a variety of reasons not every seat beside the cabin wall has a window to look out of. Most famously, on most Boeing 737s seat 11A is advertised as having a window but doesn’t have a window.
Hey @united paid your INSANE $75 charge for a window seat. There's no window. pic.twitter.com/8okbs6Wg1D
— DJ Konflikt (@MyFavoriteDJ) March 18, 2017
Got the same view as @TinaBoville on my delayed @united flight… #wheresmywindow pic.twitter.com/7t4Smt2N0C
— Jennifer Kan (@sbjennykan) August 12, 2018
United actually did promise a window beside seats that did not offer one. It was how they described these seats when tryign to get passengers to pay extra for them.
United argued that their Contract of Carriage does not promise an exterior view, and “window” is just a location description meaning the seat is next to the fuselage rather than next to the aisle. The judge rejected that as an argument for dismissal because United’s reservation screens, seat maps, ticketing terms, and boarding passes used “Window” as the seat type for the seats passengers paid to select, and United did not provide that.
While the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state enforcement related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier, American Airlines v. Wolens preserves ordinary breach of contract claims that enforce an airline’s own self-imposed obligations, rather than obligations imposed by state law. (Under Northwest v. Ginsberg the contract itself cannot be enlarged to include an implied covenant of good faith or fair dealing.)
When United sold “window” seats they imposed the obligation to deliver a window. At this stage the ruling means that “window” can plausibly mean an actual window. Since the lawsuit, United made a change so that the app and website will say “No Window” for the ‘window’ seat that has only a wall.
They’ve started to post when the window seat has no window
by
u/Deshes011 in
unitedairlines
Customers still miss that and are surprised.
Enjoying my 40 USD surcharge ‘window seat’ on my delayed @united flight from LAX to SFO.
So no photos out of the window, I guess.
Special service for @staralliance members. pic.twitter.com/PKpy1mCpcK— Andreas Wallraff (@AndreasAtETH) June 19, 2026
Delta is also being sued for the same thing on Boeing 737, 757, and Airbus A321 aircraft. They are still seeking dismissal in that case filed in Brooklyn. The United ruling isn’t binding in the Eastern District of New York, but is certainly suggestive that the case against Delta could survive as well.
About time. Stop lying to consumers. A seat next to a wall is not a “window.” If you make people pay extra for a ‘window,’ you should provide a window.
Deregulation isn’t a shield against all lawsuits. United clearly knew they were wrong, which is why they finally started adding a “No Window” warning to their seat maps lately. But that doesn’t get them off the hook for tricking people for years.
(Uh oh, Tim… that similar suit against Delta ain’t lookin’ too good…)
No sympathy- there are sites you can check the layout. Also I don’t think they specially sold a “window seat”. The airline layout to select a seat simply has seats and they selected one farthest from the aisle (which they got). Frankly doubt they will win at trail
It’s a pretty easy fix, I am sure Boeing and Airbus can provide accurate seat maps and a web/app developer can label the fuselage seat “no window” when there is not one.
For the amount of legal wrangling it could already have been solved, probably at a cost savings and something that consumers could now appreciate. Most people call that a win-win!
Considering that people on most flights have the window shades closed, are “window” seats really a big deal anymore?
Back in the day (I’m old, so I get to use that phrase!!), I believe SeatGuru used to provide a descriptive comment about “window” seats that didn’t actually provide a view out a window. Gentlemen, we have the technology, we have the capability of creating the world’s first non-bionic airline booking app that provides truthful accurate information to ticket shoppers!!
@Gregory B Cotten – 100% correct, but too often the corporate mentality is to litigate instead of resolve.
@Retired Gambler — The burden is on the seller, not the buyer. The airline is charging an ancillary fee for an advertised service (the window seat) while failing to deliver the physical product promised by that marketing label. The checkout screen and receipt label the charge as a “Window Seat Fee.” Expecting travelers to check outside websites to see if the airline is lying to them is a bad standard (Also, for a bunch of frequent flyers, some of you really seem to hate your fellow passengers. We should be cheering for a rare consumer win, not defending corporate bait-and-switch tactics.)
I mean, have you seen some of the riff-raff they let on planes these days?
Singapore Airlines does this really well – there’s a picture of a window with an X through it next to the seats that do not have a window. Very clear.
As for the damages… I mean… gosh. I’d say when selecting that seat you are first paying for the extra legroom, second paying for only one person to be next to you, and then third paying for the window. And even if you did have a window – what percentage of windows are actually usually open on flights these days? Maybe during takeoff and landing or you might take a peek every now and then – but most windows seem to remain closed.
What about a defense that United has the right to control your view? On planes where the FAs can lock all the windows and prevent them from being opened – are you entitled to damages?
Lawyers making mountains out of molehills for fees never gets old though.
@Retired Gambler – echoing @1990, you can’t be serious. You expect ordinary passengers to consult a 3rd party website to verify that the seat they purchased labeled “window seat” actually has a window? And what exactly do you mean that they didn’t specifically sell a window seat? Gary provided screenshots: the seat selection UI, the boarding pass, and likely other places (receipts, etc) label the seat as “window”.
I’ll quote the judge in the case who considered United’s argument that they didn’t actually sell a window seat: “The points are not well taken.”
So, more upcharges and revenue for United but when United gets caught based on specifics it fights back.
Window means window!
@1990
Always a first, but I agree with you on this one 100%, even if the lawsuit only results in forcing the airlines to properly label the product they are selling. A window seat should mean you have a window to look out, not just be located against the fuselage.
Either the airlines will be better at not selling a window seat for more if there is no window (better track of those windowless seats) or they will have a footnote or terminology change. “Window-side seat” or “Outer seat”.
Yes, people still keep their window shades open. I know this gets discussed too often, but I can’t believe people are using the “most windows seem to remain closed” argument. This case is a good win for consumers. If I pay for a window seat, there must be a window there and its shade will remain open.
@Denver Refugee — LOL. If we never flew, while only relying on Gary’s frequent ‘fights on planes’ and occasional ‘scantily clad ladies denied boarding’ posts, I’d agree, but, reality is… mostly “normal.”
@D Fray — I’m sure we agree on plenty, but it is often more fun (fun-er?) to debate and banter.
Easy fix. UA should put a little warning note next to any seat marked window that doesn’t have a window. Not why everything needs to be complex for complexity sake.
@George Romey — United DID start adding that warning recently, which is basically an admission that they knew they were misleading people. Yet, they pocketed an extra $50 to $75 per ticket for years without disclosing the lack of a window. In the aggregate, that adds up to millions of dollars.
The lawsuit isn’t about revising the seat map; it’s about forcing them to cough-up a refund for their bait-and-switch. So, sure, it really isn’t “complex”; it’s just plain ole corporate greed, yet again. And here you are, seemingly inserting plausible deniability to diminish their culpability… like usual.
We here @ United see this as just noise around the edges from some of our overly entitled customers.Our customers pay for these premium seats for the privilege of Flying Un-tied Airlines.
Whats next buying an aisle seat and expecting an aisle seat how dare they?!
Oh come on!! Depends on what your definition of “window” is? And, no, a customer legal rights should not be contingent on how vigorously they investigated whether a window is, in fact, a window. Damages are clear — the customer paid extra to get a window and was damaged in that amount when they did not get it.
I am utter amazed the airlines haven’t “solved” this by now. I suspect they fear a fix (marking windowless “window” seats on the seat map when you select) might be an admission of guilt. Or, maybe, they are concerned with equipment changes that make 7A go from window to windowless (or vice versa). Of course, if the airlines loose, lawyers get a bunch of the airlines’ money and the pax get a coupon for $4. But, this may be the inefficient way to get them to fo what they should have done.
Hover over the seat during selection it describes a Window Seat, so airlines have a tough argument in court if there’s no window. Also if they now admit and show no window they’ve admitted some liability. But redress surely won’t cost them much so I’m surprised it goes to court as the only winners there are lawyers. Refund passengers their seat selection fee plus compensate with some flight credits would be my guess. It is wrong to advertise a window seat, so I’m pleased it has forced clarification in the seat selection process, which should have been smarter from the beginning (if they do it now it shows it was pretty easy to have done it a long time ago).
@Ronnie — Thank you for walking back the ole ‘do nothing’ because ‘lawyers’ trope. Refund plus compensation for the deceptive practice is a good resolution. There’s a literal paper-trail here. Even if some find it tedious (and it really isn’t thanks to technology, especially AI, if properly verified), they could literally refund each and every person affected by this, rather quickly, actually. (But, as a greedy corporation, they really, really, really don’t wanna do that, like a toddler, ‘wah, wah, make me,’ unless someone, like a judge/court/parent says they actually have to.)