United and Delta Sued Over Selling ‘Window’ Seats With No Window

(SAN FRANCISCO) United Airlines and Delta Air Lines are facing new lawsuits in 2025 over “window” seats that have no actual window, with fresh filings in August in federal courts in San Francisco and New York City. The complaints, brought by the Greenbaum Olbrantz law firm on behalf of flyers who paid extra for these seats, accuse both carriers of misleading sales practices and ask judges to block future sales of such seats as window seats.

The suits seek unspecified damages and a court order to change how the airlines label and market these seats. Plaintiffs say the practice affects a large number of travelers: they claim that at least 1 million “windowless” window seats have likely been sold by the two airlines, underscoring the scale of the problem.

According to the filings, flyers often pay more for window seats to see the sky and scenery. “When travelers book a seat on an airplane next to the wall, they expect it to have a window,” the suits argue.

United declined to comment on the pending litigation, citing company policy. Delta Air Lines was contacted for comment but had no public statement as of August 21, 2025. The cases arrive at a time when airlines face growing scrutiny over seat fees and disclosures, especially when customers pay extra for a certain experience and receive less than promised.

The lawsuits point to a contrast with other carriers. Plaintiffs say American Airlines and Alaska Airlines tell customers at the time of booking if a chosen window seat lacks a window. They argue that United and Delta Air Lines should adopt similar disclosures so customers know exactly what they are buying before they pay.

Scope of the claims

The filings describe how “windowless” seats arise from aircraft design and seat layouts. On some planes, a seat marked as a window seat lines up with a fuselage panel instead of an actual window. Many flyers only discover the missing window after boarding, when it’s too late to change without a fee—or at all—on a full flight.

The suits say the lack of a clear warning during booking is deceptive, especially when airlines attach a premium to window seats. If the plaintiffs prevail, both airlines could face changes to:

• Seat maps and booking flows
• Marketing pages and mobile apps
• Post-purchase seat change tools

Possible changes the lawsuits envision include clear labels on seat maps and seat selection screens showing when a seat has no window, plus updates to apps and customer-facing systems. Operational changes can carry costs, but the suits argue that giving clear information is necessary when an airline charges extra for a specific feature.

Consumer advocates have criticized airlines for years over seat selection fees and unclear seat features. They argue extra fees are acceptable only when the benefit is properly disclosed. Legal scholars watching the cases say a court finding on deceptive practices here could guide the whole U.S. market, shaping how airlines describe seat features that matter to customers—like legroom, recline limits near exits, and the presence of a window.

The cases sit alongside a broader push for airline transparency. While these lawsuits are private actions, a clear court ruling could influence how regulators approach seat disclosures. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Aviation Consumer Protection office already tracks unfair or deceptive practices and gives flyers tools to file complaints. For government guidance and complaint options, travelers can visit the DOT’s official aviation consumer site: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer.

Key takeaway: A court ruling could set precedents for how airlines disclose seat features and prevent customers from paying extra for benefits they don’t actually receive.

What this means for travelers

For many passengers—a family visiting relatives, new immigrants returning home to finalize paperwork, students traveling for study, or business travelers—a window seat is more than a view. It can ease motion sickness, help with sleep on long flights, and offer a calmer experience for those who prefer not to sit between strangers. When a “window” seat turns out to be a wall, that’s a letdown—especially after paying extra.

If courts agree with the plaintiffs, flyers could see clearer labels and fewer surprises. In the meantime, travelers can take steps to lower their risk:

1. Check third-party seat map sites or airline community forums for your exact aircraft and row, then compare to the airline’s own seat map.
2. During booking, look for small icons or notes on the seat map indicating limited view or missing window. Some carriers already flag these seats.
3. Take a screenshot of the seat map and the seat name and price at the time of purchase. Keep your email receipt.
4. If you end up in a windowless seat you paid extra for, speak with a gate agent as early as possible. A later swap is often harder.
5. After travel, write to the airline and request a refund of the seat fee. Include your screenshots and receipt.
6. If the response falls short, consider filing a complaint with DOT using the link above.

Plaintiffs say the harm isn’t just about money—it’s about trust at the moment of purchase. The cases argue that when airlines sell a labeled seat, the label should match what customers get on the plane. In the words of one filing, travelers who book a window seat do so for the view; when there is no window, the product is not as described.

Industry context and potential effects

Airlines have long defended seat selection fees as a way to give customers choice. Basic fares often don’t include advanced seat choice, and many people willingly pay more for aisle or window seats, bulkhead rows, or seats near the front. The question now is whether a premium label can stand when a core feature isn’t there.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, a court-ordered fix could push United and Delta Air Lines to match the disclosure practices already seen at American and Alaska. That could also set a baseline that other carriers follow, helping customers make better choices without guesswork.

For the airlines, the cost of changes may include:

• Updating booking systems and seat maps
• Retraining staff
• Adjusting mobile apps and customer communications

But the payoff could be fewer complaints and a smoother booking experience.

Timeline and scale

The timeline remains early. Hearings are expected later in 2025, and outcomes could range from settlements to broader court orders. Plaintiffs seek both damages and an injunction to stop the sale of “windowless” seats as window seats.

As for the alleged scale—up to a million affected seats—the suits don’t break down routes or aircraft types. Windowless rows appear across different fleets, especially near wing roots, equipment bays, and structural joins. The question is not whether such seats exist; it’s whether airlines must flag them plainly before taking extra fees.

United declined to comment on pending litigation. Delta has not issued a public statement. American and Alaska, cited in the filings as examples, already alert customers when a “window” seat lacks a window. That contrast may weigh heavily if judges look for practical, low-cost fixes.

For now, flyers should:

• Read seat maps closely
• Keep records of purchases and seat maps
• Speak up early if something looks wrong

Clearer labels would help everyone. The courts will decide whether that clarity becomes a requirement rather than a choice.