Delta, United allegedly selling ‘window’ seats that don’t have a view

November 19, 2025 at 03:07 PM•2 min read•Dana Sullivan Kilroy

Delta & United face lawsuits for selling 'window' seats without a view. Are you paying for nothing?

Key Points

1Class-action lawsuits target Delta and United for allegedly selling 'window seats' on Boeing 737s, 757s, and Airbus A321s that lack an actual window.
2Thousands of passengers reportedly paid premium fees, up to $100, for these windowless seats, sparking breach of contract claims in US federal courts.
3Airlines argue 'window seat' refers to location, not a guaranteed view, citing design realities; consumer advocates decry misleading practices.
4Outcome could force multimillion-dollar refunds and new US regulatory mandates for transparent seat feature disclosure across the industry.

United Airlines and Delta Air Lines face class-action lawsuits in US federal courts, alleging they sold 'window seats' on aircraft like the Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321 that lacked an actual window. Thousands of travelers reportedly paid premium fees, sometimes hundreds of dollars, for these seats only to find themselves next to a blank wall. These legal challenges, filed in San Francisco and Brooklyn, contend that the airlines failed to properly disclose the absence of a view, creating a misleading expectation for passengers.

The lawsuits, Meyer v. Delta Airlines, Inc. and Brenman et al v. United Airlines Inc., argue that the term 'window seat' inherently implies a view, a reasonable expectation the airlines allegedly failed to meet. Lawyers for the plaintiffs highlight that competitors such as Alaska Airlines and American Airlines reportedly inform customers during booking if a window is missing. This discrepancy forms the core of the breach of contract claims, seeking compensation for over a million affected passengers.

Both United Airlines and Delta Air Lines have filed motions to dismiss the complaints. United's defense, articulated in its motion filed in the US Northern District of California, asserts that 'window seat' merely denotes a seat's position adjacent to the aircraft wall, not a guarantee of an exterior view. The airline cites design realities, including the placement of air conditioning ducts and wiring, as factors preventing a window at every wall-side location. However, consumer advocates criticize this stance, arguing it erodes passenger trust and allows for inflated pricing based on deceptive marketing.

The outcome of these cases carries significant implications for the US commercial aviation industry. A successful plaintiff verdict could lead to multimillion-dollar refunds for passengers and potentially force new regulatory requirements from the US Department of Transportation regarding seat feature disclosure and pricing transparency. This legal precedent would reshape how airlines market and sell ancillary services, impacting their profitability and competitive strategies in the evolving landscape of consumer protection law.