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.
They’ll try and argue that it’s just the generic term that is most familiar to their customers, not a specific definition of what you will find if you take that seat. “Aisle” “middle” and “window” are just commonly-accepted shorthand for the first, second, and third seats in a row, not prescriptive definitions.
Source: I once worked for a Extended Warranty company and they do the exact same crap. The product they sold is a service contract, it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually extending your existing warranty. But they were allowed to keep calling it an “extended warranty” and use that term predominantly and market off it, because that is the term that is in common usage for the product they sell. All they had to do was add tiny text at the bottom of the site that said “A service contract is often referred to as an “extended car warranty,” but it is not a warranty.” 🤣🤣🤣 At worst, the airlines will have to do something like that.