United Airlines to face lawsuit over sale of ‘window seats’ with no windows

A U.S. federal judge rejected a bid by United Airlines to dismiss a lawsuit brought by passengers who claimed they paid extra money to sit by a window, only to discover 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, rather than guaranteeing passengers a view outside.

He ​also said United’s ⁠ticketing terms, boarding passes and reservation screens clearly state that it would provide window seats to passengers ​who paid for them.

“No more is needed at this ​stage for ⁠the breach claims to go forward,” he ruled, Reuters reported.

The class action lawsuit was filed last August against United Airlines, after passengers who had purchased what they believed were window seats found themselves ​seated next to walls on Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321 planes, and claimed the carriers did not disclose that there were missing windows during the booking process.

“When consumers choose to book an airplane seat adjacent to the wall, they expect it to have a window,” the lawsuit states.

“Indeed, during 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 walls align with other components, such as air-conditioning ducts, electrical conduits and wiring, or structural joints.

United, which is based 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 information about ‌what ⁠to expect when they choose a seat.”

Delta, which is headquartered in Atlanta, is also seeking to dismiss a lawsuit in a federal court in New York on the same issue, Reuters added.

According to the legal filing, the plaintiffs claimed they purchased window seats to combat motion sickness and fears of flying, to keep children entertained, or to enjoy the view.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for passengers who were under the impression they would be seated next to a window when they purchased a window seat, to which it claims there are likely “millions.”

Class action lawsuits against airlines don’t always come from passengers; earlier this year, six former Spirit Airlines employees sued the now-defunct carrier, alleging it failed to provide proper written notice of termination and that they are still owed pay and benefits.

On May 2, Spirit Airlines announced that it had gone out of business after 34 years and “started an orderly wind-down of our operations, effective immediately.”

The lawsuit states that approximately 17,000 employees were “suddenly without jobs or benefits and still owed pay for their accrued sick leave and vacation time.”

Also in May, in a move to bolster financial safeguards for airline passengers, the Canadian government announced it would increase the maximum fine that can be levied against carriers for repeated violations of the air passenger bill of rights from $250,000 to $1 million and that under new legislation, airlines will be required to pay out compensation to customers within 30 days.

While the rules 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 that are within the carriers’ control.

–with files from Reuters, Global News, Katie Scott and Adriana Fallico