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.
This is so fucking dumb. It has that “boneless wings can contain bones” judgement energy from Ohio awhile back. 🤦🏻
I’d be with ya, but the ‘may’ here happens through error; not through deception.
Pizza is a vegetable
That case does at least make some sense. All meat products can contain bone due to them being from you know animals.
Basically they felt that encountering bones in a meat product is a normal, acceptable, and understood risk.
Now if he was give a plate of boneless wings and each wing was full of bones that would be a different case entirely.
This was an inadvertent bone fragment. Can happen in any meat product.
My issue with boneless wings is that they are not Wing meat at all. They’re chicken tits.
“Hey, just callin to check in with ya! I’m sittin here with two breasts in my hands…chicken breasts! BIG HEARTY LAUGH!!!”
Isnt the drumstick, which is most people’s preferred “wing”, actually the thigh part of a chicken?
No. Those are technically drumettes, and they’re the upper part of the wing, shoulder to elbow.
The drumstick is the portion from knee to foot. The thigh is the… Thigh.
no. boneless means without bones. there’s no “acceptable risk” when the package says there’s no risk.
Doesn’t matter, now places can sell fully boned pieces as “boneless” without the labor of removing the bone and at the higher price of actually boneless pieces.
No that’s not what the judges ruled at all or how civil cases work.
Civil cases do not set precedent in this way. Yes they can be used to support other cases, but in civil court each case is examined through it’s own merits.
Even if it did work the way you suggested (it doesn’t but for fun), this ruling would only apply to the state of Ohio since it was ruled on by that state’s court. Meaning companies would then have to produce Ohio exclusive boneless wings with bones and distribute them only in Ohio. Which would be not only be expensive, but also ensure their customers stop buying their product.
Yup as soon as this happened all the restaurants stopped removing bones from the wings and now boneless wings are impossible to get thanks to this ruling we are famished
Had a McDonald’s chicken nugget the other day. Entirely bone.
The little boot nugget even still had chicken toe bones.
I am so tempted to open a wing shop in Columbus and wait for a Justice to come in so I could serve them boned “boneless style” wings.
I didn’t follow that story, but if it was over some suit over bone chips, I’d donlt think that it’d be analogous. Normally, “boneless wings” are less-desirable than regular wings. Boneless wings are just reconstituted chicken, so you can use scraps and stuff for them. It’s kind of like the relationship between steak and hamburger.
But with hamburger, you can occasionally have a bone chip make it in.
That’s in contrast to a window seat, where a window seat is often considered to be preferable, and someone not getting one would feel like they’re being mislead as to the actual value of what they’re getting.
Like, I wouldn’t expect truth-in-advertising issues to come up with boneless chicken; you wouldn’t likely wouldn’t get boneless chicken wings because of an aversion to bone or something, where that’s your main goal.
kagis
Yeah:
https://apnews.com/article/boneless-chicken-wings-lawsuit-ohio-supreme-court-231002ea50d8157aeadf093223d539f8
It doesn’t sound like it’s a false advertising case with the chicken, but a product safety one.
I disagree with the ruling because the bone in question was described as “long, thin”. If it was just bone chips, then it wouldn’t have caused the complainant issues. Because of that description I think the liability should (ultimately) be on the party the was responsible for deboning the chicken.
I could be wrong about how liability cases work, but I think the Ohio case should have held the restaurant liable for the complainant’s injury/distress but allow their findings to be carried into a suit from the restaurant against the supplier of the bag of boneless wings.
No deboning process is going to be perfect, but that’s what liability insurance is for. I do think no “long, thin” bones should make it through a reliable deboning process, tho.