United Airlines Hit With Class Action Over Deceptive Window Seat Fees, Accusing The Airline Of Failing To Disclose Windowless Seats Despite Technology To Do So

Published on November 21, 2025

United Airlines is under legal scrutiny following a class action lawsuit filed by passengers who claim they were misled into paying premium fees for “window” seats that lacked actual windows. The lawsuit argues that the airline’s seat selection process, which charges extra for guaranteed window seats, fails to clearly disclose when a seat positioned as a “window” seat does not actually offer a window view. Passengers allege that this practice constitutes a breach of contract and misrepresentation, as they paid for a service they did not receive.

Windowless Window Seats: United Airlines Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Seat-Selection Fees

Passengers who pay extra for “window” seats on United Airlines might find themselves disappointed to discover that the seats they selected do not, in fact, have windows. This issue has led to a federal class action lawsuit, with plaintiffs claiming they were misled into paying for seats that failed to meet their expectations. United Airlines, however, argues that the term “window” does not guarantee a view of the exterior and has filed a motion to dismiss the case.

The class action, filed in October 2025, highlights a growing concern over transparency in the airline industry. According to United Airlines, the use of the word “window” on digital seat maps does not promise passengers a seat with an actual window. Rather, the term simply indicates that the seat is located next to the exterior wall of the aircraft. United argues that this distinction is clear and should not be interpreted as an assurance of a window view.

The lawsuit centers on the issue of “windowless window seats,” which are seats positioned next to the aircraft’s exterior wall but without a window. These seats often exist because they are located near areas of the aircraft that house machinery or structural components, such as air conditioning ducts or other internal systems. For example, airlines like Alaska Airlines have openly acknowledged that certain aircraft models lack windows in specific spots due to the placement of air conditioning riser ducts.

Plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit assert that they were misled when they paid for seats designated as “window” seats, only to find that they had no window view. They argue that this practice constitutes a breach of contract, as they were led to believe they were purchasing seats with a window, only to discover otherwise once they boarded the flight. The lawsuit highlights the discrepancy between what the airline advertises and the reality of the seating arrangement.

The issue with these “windowless window seats” is not isolated to United Airlines. A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Delta Airlines in August 2025, and both cases are based on the same issue: airlines failing to disclose when a seat designated as “window” does not actually have a window. The plaintiffs argue that both United and Delta possess the technology to identify and disclose these windowless seats to passengers during the seat-selection process but have failed to do so, despite charging a premium for these seats.

Both airlines use digital seat maps during the booking process, where passengers can select their seats for an additional fee. Full-service carriers like United and Delta often charge extra for guaranteed seat selection, particularly for seats in desirable locations, such as aisle or window seats. However, these seat maps do not always make it clear when a “window” seat is actually a “windowless window seat.” The plaintiffs argue that this lack of transparency is misleading and unfair, as passengers are led to believe they are purchasing a seat with a window view when in fact they are not.

United Airlines, in its defense, claims that the lawsuit lacks merit and argues that its contract of carriage—the legal agreement governing all ticket purchases—does not promise that window seats will have exterior window views. The airline asserts that the digital seat maps are merely a tool for indicating the seat’s position relative to the aircraft’s exterior wall and do not constitute a guarantee of a window view. Furthermore, United contends that the terms and conditions of ticket purchases are clearly outlined in its contract of carriage, which passengers agree to when purchasing a ticket.

Despite this argument, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit contend that United and other airlines have likely generated substantial revenue from these windowless window seats. They claim that the airlines have charged passengers for premium seats without clearly disclosing that these seats lack windows. The plaintiffs assert that, over time, this practice has resulted in millions of dollars in unearned revenue for the airlines.

The class action lawsuit also points out that Delta, which uses similar seat maps, has the technology to disclose “windowless window seats” to passengers. The lawsuit notes that Delta already uses this technology to identify and alert passengers about other seat-related irregularities, such as seats with limited recline or missing floor storage. However, when it comes to windowless window seats, the airline allegedly does not make this information available to passengers, despite the fact that it could easily do so.

As part of the ongoing legal proceedings, Delta has yet to submit its formal response to the class action. The airline has declined to comment on the litigation, citing its pending status. Meanwhile, United Airlines has begun to make changes to its seat maps. After the original complaint was filed, the airline began disclosing the locations of windowless window seats on its digital seat maps, a move that may mitigate some of the plaintiffs’ concerns.

In terms of pricing, the cost of selecting a “window” seat without a window varies. One plaintiff in the United lawsuit claimed to have paid between $45.99 and $169.99 for a seat that ultimately lacked a window. The disparity in fees, along with the lack of transparency regarding the absence of a window, is at the heart of the legal challenge. The lawsuit seeks to hold the airline accountable for not disclosing this critical information before passengers made their seat selections.

As this case unfolds, it highlights broader concerns about transparency in the airline industry, particularly when it comes to seat selection fees. Passengers who pay extra for premium seats expect to receive the amenities and benefits advertised by the airline. However, when those expectations are not met, as in the case of windowless window seats, the consequences could be significant, both legally and financially, for the airline industry as a whole.