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.

  • arrow74@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    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.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        “Hey, just callin to check in with ya! I’m sittin here with two breasts in my hands…chicken breasts! BIG HEARTY LAUGH!!!

        • Mr. Semi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          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.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      no. boneless means without bones. there’s no “acceptable risk” when the package says there’s no risk.

    • Goretantath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        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.

      • papalonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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