United Airlines is facing an interesting class action lawsuit in California, regarding how it markets window seats. Is this an entirely frivolous lawsuit, or is there some merit to it?
In this post:
United’s California class action lawsuit over window seats
There’s a new class action lawsuit against United in California, accusing the airline of charging passengers extra for window seats, only for passengers to find themselves in seats without windows (thanks to View from the Wing for flagging this).
Indeed, aircraft fuselages don’t consistently have windows, so there are some seats that may be marketed as window seats, but the passenger doesn’t actually have the ability to easily look out a window. As it’s described:
For many travelers, a window seat is worth the extra cost. But some passengers on United Airlines say they paid additional fees for a window seat and got something very different: a seat next to a solid wall.
Now, a class action lawsuit alleges that United Airlines misled customers by selling “window seats” that did not actually have windows. Plaintiffs claim this practice may violate airline passenger rights and may constitute false advertising, and they are seeking compensation.
The class action lawsuit is open to those in California who paid extra for a window seat on a United flight within the past four years, but ended up in a seat that didn’t have a window.
This lawsuit sort of makes a good point
People can debate whether this lawsuit is frivolous or not, but it raises an interesting question — does the nomenclature that’s used globally to differentiate seats make sense, or is it time for an update?
We all agree that the defining characteristic of an aisle seat is that it offers direct access to the aisle. We all agree that a middle seat is between at least two other seats. Logically, you’d think that a window seat is one that offers, you know, a view of a window.
However, that’s not actually how the term is used in practice. Instead, we use the term “window seat” to mean a seat that isn’t between two seats that also isn’t an aisle seat… right? While this lawsuit is targeted at United, the term “window seat” is one you’ll find at airlines across the world, so this is hardly a United specific problem.
There’s literally a running joke on Ryanair’s social media about this very topic, where passengers post pictures of themselves in the window seat without a window, and then, of course, Ryanair’s social media team gets sassy.
Funny enough, Ryanair is perhaps the world’s most transparent airline when it comes to this, because the carrier’s seat map specifically indicates which seats don’t have windows.
So while I don’t think it’s necessary to completely change the concept of what we call seats closest to the fuselage, I do think we should see airlines consistently offer a disclosure, similar to what Ryanair has.
Of course savvy travelers can research the location of windows in comparison to seats using sites like aeroLOPA.
Bottom line
United Airlines is facing a class action lawsuit in California, over the concept of charging extra for window seats that don’t actually offer windows, but instead, are next to a solid wall. This is a problem across the industry, so it’s hardly specific to any one airline.
It’s true that while aisle and middle seats have a clearly agreed upon definition, window seats are a bit trickier, since they sometimes don’t provide a view of a window. I do think other airlines should follow Ryanair with the way in which the airline discloses the lack of windows at window seats.
What do you make of this window seat lawsuit?
So the lawsuits have now been filed, in California and New York.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Delta Air Lines and United Airlines were sued on Tuesday (August 19) by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit in "window" seats, only to find themselves placed in seats next to a blank wall.
Proposed class actions were filed against United in San Francisco federal court and against Delta in Brooklyn, New York federal court, seeking millions...
So the lawsuits have now been filed, in California and New York.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Delta Air Lines and United Airlines were sued on Tuesday (August 19) by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit in "window" seats, only to find themselves placed in seats next to a blank wall.
Proposed class actions were filed against United in San Francisco federal court and against Delta in Brooklyn, New York federal court, seeking millions of dollars of damages for more than 1 million passengers at each carrier.
While “termed” a window seat, it describes the seat closest to the fuselage of the aircraft. And United does not charge extra for the window seat. Just another stupid lawsuit.
While I would agree people that book a window seat should get their money back, this is a bit silly.
Agree. We booked a flight on Singapore Airlines for a window and middle. Once on the plane we saw it was a wall. We requested a move, but then it had to become a demand to the crew.
We were not going to sue Singapore Air in Singapore, they would have gotten away with the whole thing at our expense.
We most certainly agree with this lawsuit, wake up some airlines.
Truth in advertising.
Ben, does this mean that we can sue for having a missing window in business class and having to arch our backs over to see outside? Medical costs, of course... Genuinely curious, because with this logic we could, no?
I agree that airlines need to be more transparent, but this is a moment that makes me think, "only in the USA would this happen".
What about a window seat you pay for and the crew insist that you keep the shade down during a daylight flight or lock the electronic shades. My preference is always a window seat as I like to look out even over the ocean and I think they give a little extra space between the seat and wall/window without encroaching on anyone.
Maybe airlines should block the windowless window seats and assign them at the airport or not charge for those seats.
I would book a window seat precisely because I want look out of it. If I had additionally paid for this and then discovered (without advance disclosure) that I had a wall instead of a window…I wouldn’t be happy about it. But, a lawsuit sounds a bit American-esk, and extreme
Being an Alaska elite flyer, and one who prefers windows, I often hit this issue when choosing a seat. Although Alaska often tells you that a seat is window-less (typically 11A or 10A), Alaska sometimes switches aircraft, and I end up with no window even though I expected a window.
It drives me nuts that they can't design an airplane where every "windows" seat gets a window!
This has an easier solution that Alaska doesn't use: just consistently number rows across the fleet, skipping numbers as required.
Back in the day I hated losing our exit row seats SEA-BOS because of an equipment swap, both ways.
Although I usually know in advance if my window seat has a window, I often opt for windowless window seats on long redeye flights. I prefer to lean my head against the solid wall, rather than the window, because there's less overall noise and vibrations. Any slight advantage to improving my sleep in economy on a redeye (like having an empty middle seat) is part of my flying strategy.
IDK if anyone suffered greatly and is due major compensation but it would be nice if airlines were more transparent and informed passengers if a seat didn't have a true window or didn't recline.
@Ivan
That's kind of the point of class action lawsuits. They provide remedies for groups that individually may have only lost $10/20/50 each, but everyone in that class was affected by a systemic deceptive or fraudulent practice by the defendant. This is how prior lawsuits against banks charging junk fees and companies auto-subscribing people/making it near impossible to cancel subscriptions worked in the past. The point for the class members is less the monetary...
@Ivan
That's kind of the point of class action lawsuits. They provide remedies for groups that individually may have only lost $10/20/50 each, but everyone in that class was affected by a systemic deceptive or fraudulent practice by the defendant. This is how prior lawsuits against banks charging junk fees and companies auto-subscribing people/making it near impossible to cancel subscriptions worked in the past. The point for the class members is less the monetary compensation and more preventing the defendant and others from engaging in those deceptive practices going forward.
What's interesting is that there is no evidence that a lawsuit has been filed. The link goes to the law firm website that says it is "investigating several major U.S. airlines for potentially misleading consumers by selling upgrades for “window” seats that do not, in fact, have windows."
Has a case been filed? State or federal court? Where? Have a case number and names of the representative plaintiffs? And, if so, it's too early...
What's interesting is that there is no evidence that a lawsuit has been filed. The link goes to the law firm website that says it is "investigating several major U.S. airlines for potentially misleading consumers by selling upgrades for “window” seats that do not, in fact, have windows."
Has a case been filed? State or federal court? Where? Have a case number and names of the representative plaintiffs? And, if so, it's too early for it to have been certified as a class action. A judge has to decide that.
Well there is this law called the Lanham Act. It prohibits this kind of advertising. Whether the plaintiff actually has standing to sue per the Lanham Act is perhaps an issue (though merely adding a travel suoolier even a travel agent as a co-plaintiff would likely fix the standing issue. The lack of transparency does indeed make the advetising fraudulent. This actually is a good case.
No, no it is not a good case. This is the ambulance chaser case of class action lawsuits. Yes they should get their money back. No, this should not be a class action lawsuit.
If it leads to transparency it is a wonderful case. If Ryan can be transparent so can all the others
I wouldn’t blame the airline. If passengers are worried about getting a true window seat and there’s no info on the United app, there’s dozens of online seat maps that state which seats don’t have windows, and it only takes a few minutes to check.
It’s true that more airlines could be transparent about this. But it’s not that hard to take the issue into your own hands and look on another site.
I'm not sympathetic to the suit in general. More of a concern is, that if the class wins, a bunch of lawyers will get bug bucks. The class will get small checks or, more likely, small UA vouchers. And, UA will be forced to make the website updates they now wish they had.
It utterly boggles my mind that there's a species of American that's just vehemently opposed to ANYTHING that would improve life because some professional will get paid for helping make it happen. Whether that's something as small as forcing airlines to show on their seatmap that you're selecting a non-window window seat or something major like reforming zoning codes/city veto points to allow building more housing in desirable areas to help control housing costs for...
It utterly boggles my mind that there's a species of American that's just vehemently opposed to ANYTHING that would improve life because some professional will get paid for helping make it happen. Whether that's something as small as forcing airlines to show on their seatmap that you're selecting a non-window window seat or something major like reforming zoning codes/city veto points to allow building more housing in desirable areas to help control housing costs for everyone.
Why are you against somebody getting paid for their part in forcing airlines to be more consumer friendly?
@Dusty Americans have a very warped attitude toward who can and should make a generous living off of hard work.
Blogger who provides content daily for no cost but creates posts that they don't care for? BAD!
Service economy wage slave running back and forth to bring middle class people nice things? LOSERS!
Indie band that tours for 15 years and signs to a major label so they can afford a home and healthcare...
@Dusty Americans have a very warped attitude toward who can and should make a generous living off of hard work.
Blogger who provides content daily for no cost but creates posts that they don't care for? BAD!
Service economy wage slave running back and forth to bring middle class people nice things? LOSERS!
Indie band that tours for 15 years and signs to a major label so they can afford a home and healthcare for their spouses and kids? SELL OUTS!
Lawyer, journalist, consultant? COASTAL ELITES!
Billionaire sociopaths who earn obscene wealth off of purposefully addictive devices and apps we look at every waking second of our meager lives? GeNIUseS!
@Santos... I think you need help. You have some pretty extreme views of 'Americans'. There is a word for a person that lumps all people in a single group.
Big win for UA lawyers.
Hope no one hires whatever firm that tries to to this class action in the future.
Like the idiot below who thinks hamburgers contain ham. The term hamburger represents a hamburger.
So a windows seat is a term for the seat next to fuselage not a seat with windows.
Just like you don't sue captains table, chefs table for not having those at the table.
How about carry...
Big win for UA lawyers.
Hope no one hires whatever firm that tries to to this class action in the future.
Like the idiot below who thinks hamburgers contain ham. The term hamburger represents a hamburger.
So a windows seat is a term for the seat next to fuselage not a seat with windows.
Just like you don't sue captains table, chefs table for not having those at the table.
How about carry on suitcases that couldn't fit a suit.
No wait, Apple products doesn't contain any fruit. Amazon doesn't sell rainforests. They have billions of customer combined, possibly the largest class action ever in history.
As much merit people might think, blame it on the law and lawyers.
You're a dope. Are you okay if they sneak in a row in the main cabin extra section with no extra pitch? How about they do the obvious and charge less for window seats without windows or give them away for free, so that passengers aren't duped?
Not the same. 90%+ of the time when you select a window seat, you get a seat with a window. It’s reasonable for people to assume that’s what they’re getting. It would be like buying a roll-aboard bag and finding out it came without a retractable handle. And you’d be the one defending the company saying “the description never said there was a handle!”
You sound like a real twit.
I would say the seat fee should be partially refunded. Depends on the circumstance. It is a seat in a class of service - Economy Plus - so they got the extra legroom, first dibs at the limited buy on board, etc. On other airlines like Delta and American you'd get free booze or better included snacks, so there's some argument you got the majority of what you were paying for - a seat at...
I would say the seat fee should be partially refunded. Depends on the circumstance. It is a seat in a class of service - Economy Plus - so they got the extra legroom, first dibs at the limited buy on board, etc. On other airlines like Delta and American you'd get free booze or better included snacks, so there's some argument you got the majority of what you were paying for - a seat at the front, extra legroom, additional service options.
Shouldn't be free. But they should identify on seat maps "obstructed view" which some airlines do. In the old school res systems (or even the newer point and click overlays that several airlines use) you can identify obstructed view, wing, no recline, etc.
I had this seat on a 5 hour United flight late last year. I was supposed to be in my paid lie flat on a 757 on the prior flight, but thanks to Mesa being Mesa, I missed my connection by less than 10 minutes... got to the next gate at Dulles as the jetway was leaving the plane. The agents said that since my original flight left the gate on time, and Mesa had failed to input any info as to what was going on or an estimated arrival, no hold was considered. So I got 3 hours basically by myself in the United Club and some outstanding agents who at least got me that seat on the next flight and put me to number 1 of 67 for the upgrade list. Beat a middle seat or waiting another 3 hours after that flight for another 737 First seat. (Now what UA offered me for the downgrade was also a bit insulting which was like $210..... the difference in fare was certainly not what it was when I bought, but I'd already been moved flights/routings once since buying...)
It’s very lazy of United to be charging extra for so-called window seats without doing the work of correctly identifying those seats to passengers. Their revenue strategy is clearly out of control and needs to be reined in by the CEO. They will be found liable for this, as it’s clearly misleading and deceptive conduct
I don’ t think this is frivolous at all. Many airlines will alert you when you select a window seat with no window (just as they’ll note seats that don’t recline). United doesn’t, and they should. I don’t think there should be punitive damages here but certainly refunds and a change in future behavior.
Is it even possible to file a frivolous class action lawsuit? Class action suit combines multiple lawsuits against same defendant for the same wrongdoing act? I sure hope
Ben will never rank any US airlines having the top ten or five CEOs in the world. They are all predatory to the flying public because they are monopoly and they buy off all
politicians from passing consumer friendly laws.
@globetrotter
They are way more evil predators out there.
Therefore hypocrites like you need to stop using cars, buy gas, have a cellphone, cell service, internet, don't take medications, stop using social media, or buy stuff from Amazon.
I absolutely agree on this lawsuit 100%. Prior to seat charges, I would have said this is a frivolous lawsuit. However, as the airlines continue to unbundle services like charge for seats, they need to be transparent. If there's no window, then it should be marked as such.
Take baggage fees when a bag is lost and comes on a later flight (sometimes days later). Airlines have argued a baggage fee doesn't necessarily mean the...
I absolutely agree on this lawsuit 100%. Prior to seat charges, I would have said this is a frivolous lawsuit. However, as the airlines continue to unbundle services like charge for seats, they need to be transparent. If there's no window, then it should be marked as such.
Take baggage fees when a bag is lost and comes on a later flight (sometimes days later). Airlines have argued a baggage fee doesn't necessarily mean the bag will arrive on the same flight you are on. What??? Yes, I paid for the bag to be transported five days later than my flight.
We need to start holding airlines more accountable. If this is the lawsuit that starts the ball rolling, then I am all for it.
Agreed. Especially with today's technology, it shouldn't be hard to update the seatmap displays to show where a given airframe and seat layout don't have a window for a window seat.
"...it shouldn't be hard to update the seatmap displays..."
Agreed. Even Aerolopa shows them on their maps, as does seatguru.
It's certainly a spurious suit at best, but I agree with it none the less! Airlines have one goal in mind these days, and it's separating you from as much money as possible. Being jammed up against a wall with a person jammed up against you would not be nice if you are paying to see outside and that helps you relax.
All United has to do is label their seats better and give a little compensation if they fall short - free snack and a drink ought to do the trick
"It's certainly a spurious suit at best..."
How so? If one pays for a window seat, one reasonably expects to have a transparent clear glass-and-plastic-covered shoulder-levelish opening next to them.
The contract of carriage doesn't really promise it... and given this is an Economy Plus seat the airline could argue they still got the extra legroom and earlier boarding and such. But I would definitely call it faulty advertising.
It's a really easy solution to just mark it on the seat map online. All good airlines do this and even on trains like the Eurostar. Not sure it's sue worthy, but hey this is America.
Glad to see that UA is being called to account and though we all know nothing will happen except a bunch of lawyers will be able to buy another luxury car or a vacation home, maybe consumers will get lucky and UA will continue it's side in the ACSI's Customer Satisfaction Index.
Still a bit of light between UA and the Section 8s (NK & F9) but I'm sure UA will close the gap soon enough.
"People can debate whether this lawsuit is frivolous or not..."
People are generally complete idiots these days, so they can and will debate all sorts of utter nonsense. That said, I think this lawsuit absolutely and clearly has merit.
Pretty simple, pretty clear: They're not window seats, at least not all of them are. Some of them are "partial window seats" and some of them are just "wall seats". Any airlines selling a window seat...
"People can debate whether this lawsuit is frivolous or not..."
People are generally complete idiots these days, so they can and will debate all sorts of utter nonsense. That said, I think this lawsuit absolutely and clearly has merit.
Pretty simple, pretty clear: They're not window seats, at least not all of them are. Some of them are "partial window seats" and some of them are just "wall seats". Any airlines selling a window seat that doesn't have a window is cheating their customers through deceptive marketing.
I mean, it would be like MacDonalds selling a hamburger that doesn't contain any ham (hey, wait a minute...get my lawyer on the phone, stat!)....
Seriously, I'm glad to see this lawsuit and wish them success. Should be an easy win. Class action, here I come.
You lost all credibility, and your potential lawsuit, when you accuse "MacDonalds".
But people who you consider "generally complete idiots these days" never file a lawsuit for hamburger for the same reason "one idiot" who possible would file a class action on ham in hamburgers, againts EVERY hotdog manufacturer, seller, etc. because it neither contains dogs nor the dog is hot.
The jokes surrounding Ryanair's 11A seat always give me a chuckle.
The Airline Booking Systems all support a characteristic "No Window" (it's an IATA standard), precisely aiming at representing such seats. It's then fairly easy to flag these seats (in the back-end's seat map) and have this rendered on customer channels (e.g. the web-site). Just requires doing the work :-)
Given the extortionate amount UA charges to sit anywhere aside from half-way into a toilet at the back, I hope they get raked over the coals.
"Window seat" is fairly self-explanatory. The clue is in the name.
This lawsuit will go nowhere. UA might refund any seat fees to passengers that can prove they paid and booked a window for a seat with no window.
It seems like being by a window doesn't carry the same attraction it once did. On the last few flights I've taken, over half of the window passengers kept the shades down for the entire flight.
Yes... if the shades are closed when you board, people seem to think they can't be raised. Always funny to see someone raise it a few inches, peer out, and then snap it shut like they just did a naughty.
I'm thankful for Spirit who makes everyone open window shades for take off and landing.