United Airlines, Delta claim paying for a ‘window seat’ doesn’t guarantee a window

Window seat class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Three passengers filed class action lawsuits against United Airlines and Delta Air Lines.
• Why: The plaintiffs claim the airlines charged extra for “window seats” despite those seats having no window view.
• Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in New York and California federal courts.
• Airlines’ response: United and Delta claim that a “window seat” refers only to a seat’s position against the aircraft wall, not a guarantee of an exterior view. 

United Airlines and Delta Air Lines have asked federal judges to dismiss two class action lawsuits, arguing that passengers are misinterpreting the definition of a “window seat.”

This defense challenges class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs Aviva Copaken and Marc Brenman against United, and plaintiff Nicholas Meyer against Delta. The plaintiffs allege that the companies violated state and federal consumer laws by marketing and selling window seats to passengers at a premium price but failing to disclose that some of these seats do not have an actual window.

In response to claims that they mislead customers, the airlines assert that the term “window seat” describes a seat’s location in the row — specifically its position against the aircraft’s outer wall — rather than promising an amenity like an exterior view.

United’s lawyers laid out this defense in a motion to dismiss filed on Nov. 10.

“The use of the word ‘window’ in reference to a particular seat cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view,” United’s legal team wrote, as reported by the New York Post. The airline contends that nothing in its contract of carriage promises that a passenger paying for a window seat will always receive one with an actual window.

Despite the airlines’ insistence that the contract does not guarantee a view, the plaintiffs argue this interpretation contradicts what travelers expect when they pay extra. Copaken says she paid as much as $169.99 for a window seat on a United flight, only to find that her seat was next to a wall with no window.

Plaintiffs say they would never have paid extra for a seat without a view

While the airlines argue the label is merely positional, Copaken argues that many passengers choose window seats for the comfort they provide, especially those who have a fear of flying, anxiety, claustrophobia or motion sickness. She claims that a window view can provide greater comfort in an otherwise distressing environment.

“Whatever the motivation for buying a window, had plaintiffs and the punitive class members known that they were buying windowless window seats, they would not have selected them at all, much less paid extra for them,” the United class action lawsuit says.

In addition, Copaken’s lawsuit claims that several aircraft models, including Boeing 737s, A320s, and 757s, contain rows where windows are omitted to accommodate internal components. Yet, customers are not warned about this at the time of booking.

Consumers reasonably assume that a window seat provides a view outside the plane, and that the airlines’ failure to indicate otherwise amounts to deceptive conduct, the seat class action lawsuit states. The lawsuit also cites rival carriers, such as American Airlines and Alaska Airlines, which already disclose when a window seat has no window.

The plaintiffs are suing United and Delta for breach of contract, breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel. They are seeking damages, fees, costs and a court order requiring the airlines to change their practices.

A proposed trial date was set for June 7, 2027.

Have you ever paid extra for a window seat only to be seated next to a wall? Share your experience in the comments.

The United and Delta class action lawsuits are Meyer v. Delta Air Lines Inc., Case No. 25-04608, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and Brenman, et al. v. United Airlines Inc., Case No. 25-06995, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Ford recalls 229K Bronco vehicles due to instrument panel issues
• Amazon Alexa users win class certification over claims their voiceprint data was illegally collected
• Class action claims Allstate sold unlawful UM/UIM coverage to Lyft riders
• 10 class action settlements you can claim in December 2025