I understand that lawsuits are often filed against major corporations in hopes of bringing about change. In the United States, we’re used to some pretty aggressive lawsuits. However, even by those standards, I struggle to see merit to a lawsuit that has just been filed against an airline, as flagged by PYOK.
In this post:
Traveler claims broken online check-in contributed to “injury”
American Airlines is being sued in Chicago district court for as much as $219,000, after a traveler wasn’t able to use online check-in, claiming that this constitutes an injury under the Montreal Convention, which governs the rules that global airlines have to follow.
This situation dates back to June 12, 2025, when a woman was traveling with her husband and son from Paris (CDG) to Chicago (ORD). The mother has restrictions on her mobility, which require her to use a powered wheelchair, and her son is autistic (both of these are important details, as you’ll find out below).
The traveler tried to use American’s online check-in system, but she claims that the system showed the wrong titles for her son and husband, which “triggered a system lockout that barred her from online check-in and forced her and her family to conduct same-day airport check-in.”
The traveler claims that having to check-in at the airport led to “physical and physiological burden and fatigue, time compression and disruption of medical routines, and risk to pre-arranged disability accommodations.”
Per the complaint, “for individuals with disabilities and their dependents with complex medical or neurodevelopmental needs, such as Plaintiff and her son, advance online check-in is not a discretionary convenience but an essential and protected right under federal law.”
Wait, but how is this an injury? The lawsuit claims that the lack of being able to use online check-in formed part of an overall accident that subsequently led to injury.
When the family arrived in Chicago, they discovered that the wheelchair had been sent to baggage claim, rather than being available at the door of the aircraft, as was supposed to be the case. So the airline tried to send her to baggage claim to collect her wheelchair. However, she refused to leave the plane, citing her federally protected rights, at which point the wheelchair was brought to her.
As a result of this incident, she claims to have suffered significant emotional distress that led to cardiovascular instability. Per the complaint, “the Defendant’s actions caused Plaintiff substantial and foreseeable harm, including physical pain, humiliation, emotional trauma, and a documented medical decompensation in the weeks following the flight.”
In response to the incident, American offered the traveler a $75 travel credit, which was considered to be “grossly inadequate and insulting.” The Montreal Convention limits compensation that can be claimed to 151,880 Special Drawing Rights, which is currently worth around $219K.
My take on this lawsuit against American Airlines
There’s no denying that disabled travelers face challenges that many of us could never even imagine, and I can appreciate the need for them to advocate for their rights. After all, most publicly traded companies don’t actually care about people, and they’ll only do things that positively help their bottom line, so there’s value in trying to hold them accountable.
That being said, I take issue with some of the claims made in this lawsuit. For one, the lawsuit claims that “advance online check-in is not a discretionary convenience but an essential and protected right under federal law.”
This is simply factually incorrect. For example, if someone is selected for additional screening (which is outside of a carrier’s control, and you’ll know based on “SSSS” being written on the boarding pass), then online check-in is blocked. Even when an airline offers online check-in, there are other situations where it might not work, like when documents need to be verified. For that matter, some airlines flying to the United States don’t even offer online check-in.
It’s possible I’m missing something, but I don’t see how guaranteed online check-in can be considered a federally protected right. For that matter, how is having to check-in at an airport for a few minutes any different than having to wait a few extra minutes at security or immigration?
Regarding the traveler’s powered wheelchair not being delivered to the plane, that’s obviously an issue. It’s not clear if there was a miscommunication, if there was an honest mistake, or what. Sometimes airlines make mistakes with where they deliver personal items, and that’s super frustrating, but I don’t think every single mistake is worthy of a lawsuit.
Now, there’s no denying that airlines have historically struggled with taking good care of passengers’ mobility devices. They’re often damaged at an alarming rate, and that’s not cool, and is something airlines should be forced to address.
However, it sounds like in this situation, the traveler stood her ground and stayed on the plane until her device was found, so good on her for advocating for herself. However, it really isn’t clear how this, combined with online check-in not working, amounts to a lawsuit?
She seems to claim that the online check-in combined with the extended wait for the wheelchair was what caused the “medical decompensation” in the weeks following the trip. How can that definitively be stated, rather than perhaps the overall stress from the trip, or from taking a 10-hour flight, contributing to any issues?
I’d like to think that I do my best to be a compassionate person, and I try to put myself in other peoples’ shoes as much as possible. But even with that, this seems to fall into the category of “airlines don’t always get things right,” rather than “American made a grave and unforgivable mistake, and needs to pay up.”
Bottom line
American Airlines is facing a lawsuit under the Montreal Convention, after a disabled passenger claimed she sustained an injury following a flight. First online check-in didn’t work, which the lawsuit claims is a “protected right under federal law.” Then her powered wheelchair got delivered to baggage claim rather than to the door of the aircraft, causing “physical pain, humiliation, emotional trauma, and a documented medical decompensation,” while she waited for it to be delivered.
While I’m sympathetic to how stressful travel can be, I struggle to see the merit to this lawsuit, but maybe I’m missing something.
What do you make of this lawsuit against American?
Absolutely crazy this was even filed.
Q: Why don't sharks attack lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.
You know that there are people who make it their professional job to go searching for hotels, airline websites, etc. and sue them for not having the info required by the ADA, etc.? Or just look to file nuisance lawsuits and get a settlement?
There was a Supreme Court case about this issue.
This is what happens when you create more and more rights to sue.
I personally don't believe that a website is a place of public accommodation that you can sue over.
Some old lady got millions because the coffee was hot.
I travel frequently with my mother, who has a disability which requires her to use a wheelchair in airports. She has a powered electric scooter which she travels with most of the time, but occasionally will just use airport wheelchairs on international flights.
In our experience (I used to fly with her dozens of times per year), it is a common occurence that our personal mobility vehicle is of meant to be delivered at the...
I travel frequently with my mother, who has a disability which requires her to use a wheelchair in airports. She has a powered electric scooter which she travels with most of the time, but occasionally will just use airport wheelchairs on international flights.
In our experience (I used to fly with her dozens of times per year), it is a common occurence that our personal mobility vehicle is of meant to be delivered at the gate (with the tag on it), but instead it is sent to baggage claim. It happens way to often. More so, it seems to happen on American the most in our experience, especially at MIA. We flew AA so much, my mother had Platinum status. And every single time flying into MIA, we always had such a delay in getting off the aircraft, that they would have to kick us off because they needed to start boarding for the next flight (the cleaners had already left). Most of the time, it was because they chair would be sent to baggage claim. MIA also apparently doesn't have elevators from the ramp into the terminal at every gate, so they have to take the chair a few gates down to get to the elevator to bring it up (according to AA employees). I would like to add that AA flight attendants are more often than not very helpful in those cases and will offer us snacks from the first class snack basket and drinks. But this is a major pain for travelers with disabilities.
Does the case in this post warrant a lawsuit for that amount? Probably not. I agree with Ben on his comments. However, change is definetly needed on the handling of medical mobility devices on airlines. I get that things happen every once in a while, but it happens to my family basically every time, especially at MIA, for it to just be a coincidence.
When I fly on an AA-issued award ticket where one segment is on a partner airlines like AY, I am never allowed to check in online. The pop up message always tells me: "online check in is not available".
Lawyers love to sue and doctors adore performing surgery. It is how they earn a
living becoming millionaires, despite the fact that they have six figure student debts upon graduation. Social sciences require no proofs, precedents and common/ legal sense. If lawyers can genuinely and correctly interpret the laws, how do you explain when District judges, Appellate judges and Supreme Court judges issue different rulings without explanations? Especially supreme court judges issue their rulings...
Lawyers love to sue and doctors adore performing surgery. It is how they earn a
living becoming millionaires, despite the fact that they have six figure student debts upon graduation. Social sciences require no proofs, precedents and common/ legal sense. If lawyers can genuinely and correctly interpret the laws, how do you explain when District judges, Appellate judges and Supreme Court judges issue different rulings without explanations? Especially supreme court judges issue their rulings based mostly on their political and religious affiliations !!! None of us should have confidence in our justice system when the Supreme Court Republican justices
perversely interpreted the Constitution that presidents have broad impunity from making decisions while in power and have the power to deport undocumented
immigrants under Alien Enemies Act. Those who still have confidence in our legal system are native born heterosexual whites. Christians are a huge plus.
"Emotional Damage!"
-Steven He
Another example of why we desperately need tort reform and push all the plaintiff attorneys out on an ice flow into the sea.
I once worked at a hotel where we had to zero out the bonus pool because of out of state lawsuits about the website contract ratio under ada. The employees should have been allowed to use the plaintiff and his attorney as a piñata after that.
Ben, if I may suggest without geing "that" poster, the use of something like:
"(both of these are important details, as you’ll find out below)."
has become common on thecweb. I hate it. You're a good enough writer that you don't need to tell me what you just said is importsnt for the story. I don’t need to be treated as if I will ignore details unless you point out I shouldn't.
Oh, and boo to the lawsuit.
Whaaaambulance Lawsuit. Only in America.
It’s everywhere and Brazilians are the most litigious air travellers.
If I had to make wager AA will throw a few thousand her way but not anywhere $219K.
I get flak for saying this, but lawyers are society’s most civil and honorable people. The entire point of the law is to facilitate dispute resolution in a formal, graceful manner.
Most of us aren’t lawyers and cannot correctly interpret laws, lawsuits, and the like. Something that seems wrong or frivolous to us common folk may have merit under the system of jurisprudence lawyers actually know.
You don't get flak. You just got brainwashed.
They use complicated buy vague words to write laws to keep ignorant people like you out thinking it's complicated and confusing, it's not.
Why do you think no one can decipher what exactly is a "well regulated militia" or how is that applicable to AR-15 in 2025.
"Something that seems wrong or frivolous"
"lawyers actually know"
Notable Read:
Central Park Five
OJ Simpson
2008 R. Kelly
And the list keeps on going.
Just institute "loser pays" into our legal system like most of Europe and these types of lawsuits will immediately vanish. If anyone has ever watched daytime TV in the US it is a virtual onslaught of slip and fall ambulance chasers advertising. They are a drag on our economy and an assault on common sense.
More flight reviews, etc and less click-bait articles would be really appreciated please Ben.
It's called growing up, settling down, married, having 2 kids, a dog, and aging parents.
You can seek what you desire on TikTok.
Now get lost.
Ben has a variety of articles. I took interest in this article and his reviews. You can simply not read this article if you wish. I am less interested in articles about credit card points but I don’t ask if Ben, please, would do less of them to suit me. I just don’t read those ones and my day is fine.
See Ben, my point is proven …. the click-bait nonsense is swallowed hook, line and sinker by the website numpties who skulk around your offering …. the children’s toys have been expelled from the pram again today.
I wonder which posts your majesty deems valid for consumption? I dont need yet another article about a credit card that gives mileage. I have the 2 credit cards I need for AA and DL and I'm not getting another no matter what.
Skip over it if you don't like it. Jeezuz.
@aeroB13A - “skulk” lol. So we both read this site on our phones but you’re the sophisticated flaneur and I’m one of the “skulkers”. The article is not “click bait”. Click bait is when an article fails to deliver on the promise of its headline. This article is fine. Something not to your specific liking is not “clickbait”.
“I understand that lawsuits are often filed against major corporations in hopes of lawyers and plaintiffs making a buck.”
FTFY
WOW!!!!!!
How did any person with disability ever get to fly decades ago before online check in was even a thing.
Interesting. Lacking any federal consumer protection agency that is effective, a lawsuit is the only thing that Americans have against airlines behaving badly.
If the facts are confirmed, AA behaved horrendously and was insulting with a mere $75, not even in cash but in useless expiring vouchers, for mangling an easy and routine wheelchair delivery.
Obviously a lawsuit is a spaghetti thrown at the wall, to see what sticks. You focused on the online check-in...
Interesting. Lacking any federal consumer protection agency that is effective, a lawsuit is the only thing that Americans have against airlines behaving badly.
If the facts are confirmed, AA behaved horrendously and was insulting with a mere $75, not even in cash but in useless expiring vouchers, for mangling an easy and routine wheelchair delivery.
Obviously a lawsuit is a spaghetti thrown at the wall, to see what sticks. You focused on the online check-in aspect, which may or may not have some merit, but the lawsuit needs to be looked at in its entirety.
I'm not a lawyer here to determine the outcome.
I'm here for the entertainment.
You can help with the entertainment by reading the case entirely and point out some hypocrisy.
Especially considering AA is currently under a consent order for having *checks notes* "failed in numerous cases to provide passengers with
disabilities using wheelchairs with adequate enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance, including assistance in moving within the terminal." Seems like maybe they've still got work to do on the wheelchair front.
This one makes you 1 for 5 in not posting crap articles today Ben.
If you don't want to read an article, then don't. If you don't like the content, then you're free to not come to the site. No one is forcing you to do anything, and since the site is free you can't claim to not be getting what you paid for.