A U.S. federal judge rejected a bid by United Airlines to dismiss a lawsuit brought by passengers who claimed they paid extra cash to sit down by a window, only to find their seats had no windows.
U.S. District Judge James Donato rejected United’s argument that the term “window” referred only to a seat’s position relative to the cabin wall and aisle, relatively than guaranteeing passengers a view outside.
He also said United’s ticketing terms, boarding passes and reservation screens clearly state that it would offer window seats to passengers who paid for them.
“No more is required at this stage for the breach claims to go forward,” he ruled, Reuters reported.
The category motion lawsuit was filed last August against United Airlines, after passengers who had purchased what they believed were window seats found themselves seated next to partitions on Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321 planes, and claimed the carriers didn’t disclose that there have been missing windows throughout the booking process.
Get each day National news
Get each day Canada news delivered to your inbox so you will never miss the day’s top stories.
“When consumers decide to book an airplane seat adjoining to the wall, they expect it to have a window,” the lawsuit states.
“Indeed, throughout the seat selection process on its mobile app, United affirmatively describes every wall-adjacent seat as having a ‘window’—including the windowless seats,” it continues.
Sometimes plane partitions align with other components, resembling air-conditioning ducts, electrical conduits and wiring, or structural joints.
United, which relies in Chicago, has not commented on the lawsuit but told Reuters it had “added more detail to our seat selection process, so customers can have more details about what to expect once they select a seat.”
Delta, which is headquartered in Atlanta, can be searching for to dismiss a lawsuit in a federal court in Recent York on the identical issue, Reuters added.
In accordance with the legal filing, the plaintiffs claimed they purchased window seats to combat motion sickness and fears of flying, to maintain children entertained, or to benefit from the view.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for passengers who were under the impression they’d be seated next to a window once they purchased a window seat, to which it claims there are likely “tens of millions.”
Class motion lawsuits against airlines don’t all the time come from passengers; earlier this 12 months, six former Spirit Airlines employees sued the now-defunct carrier, alleging it failed to offer proper written notice of termination and that they’re still owed pay and advantages.
On May 2, Spirit Airlines announced that it had gone out of business after 34 years and “began an orderly wind-down of our operations, effective immediately.”
The lawsuit states that roughly 17,000 employees were “suddenly without jobs or advantages and still owed pay for his or her accrued sick leave and vacation time.”
Also in May, in a move to bolster financial safeguards for airline passengers, the Canadian government announced it will increase the utmost effective that will be levied against carriers for repeated violations of the air passenger bill of rights from $250,000 to $1 million and that under recent laws, airlines might be required to pay out compensation to customers inside 30 days.
While the principles don’t include protections against the misrepresentation of seats, Canada’s air passenger protection regulations (APPR) do require airlines to compensate passengers for delays or cancellations which are throughout the carriers’ control.
–with files from Reuters, Global News, Katie Scott and Adriana Fallico
© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.