Is it false advertising for an airline to sell a so-called window seat that does not actually have a window? United Airlines is facing a class action lawsuit in California over this very issue.
United Airlines Faces Class Action Lawsuit For Selling “Window Seat Without A Window”
According to multiple reports, United Airlines is the subject of a proposed class action lawsuit claiming the carrier engaged in false advertising by selling seats labeled as “window seats” that lacked an actual window.
Travelers allegedly purchased what they thought would be a window seat only to find themselves staring at a blank cabin wall. The lawsuit claims United charges more for window seats and therefore deceived passengers who paid extra, believing they would enjoy a view outside.
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.
At this point, I have not seen evidence that the class action lawsuit has officially been filed in federal court. Regardless, the potential claim highlights a recurring frustration among travelers: not all “window seats” are created equal.
On many aircraft types, one case being the 11A select 737 jets, structural elements or design quirks can leave certain “window” seats without an actual window aligned beside them. Airlines continue to sell these seats as window seats in their booking systems, often at a premium.
As frivilous as this lawsuit may seem, there is some validity to objection over the lack of disclosure. United does not clearly indicate which seats are mising windows (while it does indicate if a seat has limited recline).
As One Mile At A Time points out, even budget carrier Ryanair lets passengers know if a row is missing a window:
This class action lawsuit is limited to Caliornia residents, with California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law offering additional proections and the Golden State being seen as friendlier venue for this lawsuit if it goes to a jury.
CONCLUSION
Just what is a window seat on an airplane? Is it always and necessarily a seat with a window or might it also simply describe seats taht are adjacent to hte fuselage of the plane, whether they have windows or not? A class action lawsuit in California against United Airlines seeks to answer this quesiton.
Hat Tip: View From The Wing
Look, I am all for airlines being transparent and also adding it to seatmaps like Ryanair, especially since they are trying to milk us in any way they can. But, here is my question: if you fly a business product that only has 1 window that you have to lean forwards, could you then file a lawsuit against the airline for misinformation and medical costs for the ‘suffering’ one has to endure of arching your back . It’s ridiculous, only in the United States would this happen. There has to be a line to draw, this is absurd.
Next thing you know you have influencers filing a class action against Erewhon for putting 34 ml of matcha in their drink when the menu said 35…
I might tend to agree with you if airlines hadn’t started so aggressively squeezing space out of planes, then charging you to get it back, including extra charges for exit row seats and such. If they can track and charge anything that is a perk or improvement, they can and should track and properly describe and charge for downgrades, however trivial
Maybe complaining passengers actually were seated by one of those special Boeing large window that only appear in flight when the bolts are missing and the plug pops out?
Eve – this feels to me an entirely legitimate suit. Unless United argues that a window seat is a seat location that is simply not an aisle or a middle, then they are selling something that they do not deliver (a window) That is the essence.
The business class seat argument is not the same. And as for the matcha, 34 ml is not 35ml. If you want to charge for 35ml, you should ensure you sell 35 or more.
This is not absurd. This is the law.
With the same logic, we could sue almost any establishment we visit. How many times have people asked for drinks at bars and gotten more booze then they asked for? Which in turn could have caused harm
Yes, this is very different to not having a window, but at the same time it’s also false advertising. I am 100% for there being labels and think airlines need to do better, but come on. If you can name me another country that would think to do this I am all ears..
The comparison doesnt make sense, a person a least has the drink with the matcha. It’s in their hands, it tastes and looks like whats paid for, no matter how minute the inaccuracy. The same cannot be said about a window seat with no window, not even a partial window. It’s just a wall. You cant look out of it, and also out of pocket for the privilege of starring a white wall.
Let’s put it another way: in Europe, if your flight does not arrived within a window of the scheduled (ie advertised) time, you get compensation from the airline. They advertised something for sale, you bought it, and the airline did not deliver. The EU mandates this. It’s not a result of goodwill.
Class action suits are how Americans get consumer protections. Sad, but our reality. Trust me, United will stop selling some window seats without windows as a result. Even if it never goes to court.
Good!
Singapore Airlines also clearly indicate when a seat is missing a window on its seat maps.
Pretty pathetic when Ryanair is more consumer friendly than UA in this aspect !
Shame on UA & the others who aren’t transparent …
Where on that United seat map screenshot does it call 12A a “window seat”? It’s in column A, which implies that it’s furthest to port – but the word “window” is never mentioned. It’s marketed as an “Economy Plus” seat, which gives you “extra legroom” and a “favorable location in economy,” but not a window.
That’s what I’ve seen flying AA. It’s not touted as a window seat. Window seat used to be a thing before we became sardines in a can. And the vernacular has stick around with people but the airlines dropped it.
We booked a window exit seat on United’s Dreamliner and not only was there no window but my very tall husbands seat was slightly at an angle and he could not extend his legs because the life raft bulkhead was in front of him. Lesson learned. Never again. It was a very long 9 hour flight.
I wouldn’t agree with the plaintiffs just for incorrectly describing a seat, except that the defendant turned that exact seat into a product when they started charging more for it than other seats. If they charged for a product they didn’t deliver they can pay. Shaming the public for their pettiness is an attempt minimize and change the issue. Pay up United.
I once flew Air Europa from MAD to PMI, a short 50-minute hop. I had booked a window seat which had, in fact no window. Come to find my fare was a few euros cheaper than had I had an actual window. I found out when I asked a crew member about the missing window and later corroborated via the airline’s website. In other words, the missing window was already calculated in my cheaper fare. Now, it might have been nice to know that as I sat down disappointed that I wouldn’t see the often-spectacular arrival into Palma, but the airline’s pricing system had processed the data beforehand.