In August 2025, two nearly identical lawsuits were filed: one against United (in San Francisco federal court) and one against Delta Air Lines (in Brooklyn federal court). They claim that each airline sold more than one million “window seats” on aircraft such as the Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321, many of which are next to blank fuselage walls rather than windows.
Passengers say they paid seat-selection fees (commonly $30 to $100+) expecting a view, sunlight, or the comfort of a genuine window seat — and say they would not have booked or paid extra had they known the seat lacked a window.
As reported by Reuters, United’s filing argues that it never promised a view when it used the label “window” for a seat. According to the airline, “window” refers only to the seat’s location next to the aircraft wall, not a guarantee of an exterior view.
It is a seat that is closest to the windows for the row. This is an open and shut case of common fucking sense
Some people are claustrophobic and having a window to look out makes a ton of difference. A middle seat isn’t an option they can handle and while an aisle seat is preferred, a window seat is tolerable provided it actually has a window. Personally I don’t care but knowing someone that is quite claustrophobic, this would be a big deal for them.
I promise the airlines don’t need you defending them on lemmy.
Not defending them, and don’t care. There are a bunch of self righteous people on here who think they’re coming up with a profound statement when it’s just common sense they need.
If you don’t care then don’t respond to me Mr common sense.
Every window used to have a window. Then airlines decided to cram more seats inside without adjusting the number of windows. Common sense says you change the fucking name of the thing you’re selling, because of course people are going to continue thinking of what used to be true as the reason, not some hamdisted attempt to argue your way out of liability for your lies.
deleted by creator
Would you have the same opinion it if they didn’t include a seat either? Since there are two words at play here and we’re apparently making gross allowances for meaning in one could we do the other? Would it be acceptable if they placed you near the area with a seat?
"Seat” refers only to the location allocated near to a row of seats, not a guarantee of actual place to sit.
What kind of legal linguistic creep are we going to tolerate under this heading of “common fucking sense”?
That isn’t what the name implies. Way to move goalposts. You should work for united.
If they had marked which particular seats didn’t have actual windows, it’d likely be fine to keep the terminology.
I know you are getting downvoted, but I call the seat furthest from the aisle the “window” seat no matter what is on the “far” side of it.
So, I think it’s entirely possible that United wins this case in front of a judge. If it gets decided by a jury, I’d expect at least one person of the 12 (or so) to insist that “window seat” means there has to be a window.