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.
This is so fucking dumb. It has that “boneless wings can contain bones” judgement energy from Ohio awhile back. 🤦🏻
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.
no. boneless means without bones. there’s no “acceptable risk” when the package says there’s no risk.
My issue with boneless wings is that they are not Wing meat at all. They’re chicken tits.
“Hey, just callin to check in with ya! I’m sittin here with two breasts in my hands…chicken breasts! BIG HEARTY LAUGH!!!”
Isnt the drumstick, which is most people’s preferred “wing”, actually the thigh part of a chicken?
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.
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.
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.
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
Had a McDonald’s chicken nugget the other day. Entirely bone.
The little boot nugget even still had chicken toe bones.
I am so tempted to open a wing shop in Columbus and wait for a Justice to come in so I could serve them boned “boneless style” wings.
Pizza is a vegetable
It has that “boneless wings can contain bones” judgement energy from Ohio awhile back
I’d be with ya, but the ‘may’ here happens through error; not through deception.
I didn’t follow that story, but if it was over some suit over bone chips, I’d donlt think that it’d be analogous. Normally, “boneless wings” are less-desirable than regular wings. Boneless wings are just reconstituted chicken, so you can use scraps and stuff for them. It’s kind of like the relationship between steak and hamburger.
But with hamburger, you can occasionally have a bone chip make it in.
That’s in contrast to a window seat, where a window seat is often considered to be preferable, and someone not getting one would feel like they’re being mislead as to the actual value of what they’re getting.
Like, I wouldn’t expect truth-in-advertising issues to come up with boneless chicken; you wouldn’t likely wouldn’t get boneless chicken wings because of an aversion to bone or something, where that’s your main goal.
kagis
Yeah:
It doesn’t sound like it’s a false advertising case with the chicken, but a product safety one.
I disagree with the ruling because the bone in question was described as “long, thin”. If it was just bone chips, then it wouldn’t have caused the complainant issues. Because of that description I think the liability should (ultimately) be on the party the was responsible for deboning the chicken.
I could be wrong about how liability cases work, but I think the Ohio case should have held the restaurant liable for the complainant’s injury/distress but allow their findings to be carried into a suit from the restaurant against the supplier of the bag of boneless wings.
No deboning process is going to be perfect, but that’s what liability insurance is for. I do think no “long, thin” bones should make it through a reliable deboning process, tho.
I prefer window seats specifically because they are up against a wall, and I know I have an armrest to myself. If that’s where I end up, I am more likely to just close the window shade, particularly if I am jetlagged and need sleep.
However, I had status on United for a while and throughout that whole time did not have to pay any extra fees for that “window” seat. If the airlines are up-charging for window seats, then they better have windows, otherwise they should call them something else.
A window seat without a window is like an isle seat that isn’t on the isle.
False advertising.
Aisle refers to the space between the rows. Every seat is an aisle seat.
/s
And this is why the civil court system is just plain broken. Despite the astronomical cost of taking this upsurd stance in court, it is worth it. Thier needs to be damages assesed for the absurdity of the logic used to force something to cost more court time than it should get.
dismiss with prejudice/disbar the lawyers that push these lawsuits at all
course, there are plenty of rigged court systems in the US that justify their whole existence via these sham lawsuits, so…
Yup. Make it 10x actual damages for this kind of bullshit. Then they’ll stop, maybe.
Thier needs
Whose?
This does seem like the worst seat option unless you really just want to sleep and even then you can get it with window and pulling the shade down. Its like obstructed view seating. Honestly even the isle on that row should be notified of the lack of a window.
Update from four days ago:
United Airlines Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit Over ‘Windowless Window Seats’ Pricing
This is pretty standard, pretty much any big lawsuit will involve the sued party moving to dismiss at around this stage. Because why not? It might work, and even if it doesn’t, it will cost the opposition money and energy to respond to.
Ummm what? United fixed this issue by removing all airline windows.
Try could also remove all the seats. People can sit on the floor or whatever. Just shove them in like cattle, and charge for window seats that have no windows or seats.
The agreement was im paying 355 dolars for a window seat. If ‘window seat’ just refers to the location, then dolars just refers to the fact its an amount of currency, and ill have my bank adjust the payment to reflect that was in pesos.
I remember back when the seats actually aligned with the windows on airplanes, such that you could sit in a seat and look out the window.
Then they started shoving more rows of seats in. Over the past 20 years or so, I’ve often got a “window seat” where the nearest window is positioned directly beside the seat in front, where nobody can open or close the cover without fully reclining (ha) the seat, and there’s zero view because of the angle.
Technically still a window seat, as there IS a window nearby, but not what you’d expect coming from any other mode or era of transport.
In my experience the window also isn’t usable from the window seat unless you’re really short. And the way the fuselage curves up at the side, there’s also no shoulder room.
Yeah but none of the seats have shoulder room. I’ll take squished shoulders over getting hit by the drink cart every time
To me:
Window seat has lack of shoulder room - bad.
Middle seat had 2 arm rests that I have to shrimp to rest my arms on - bad.
Aisle seat has 1 (bad) arm rest, but has shoulder and leg room - good.I don’t care about window seats AT ALL
And newer planes all have windows where the tint is controlled by the crew (so as to minimize conflict between passengers) which… I still like to look out while stretching my legs near the bathroom but pretty sure staring out a ridiculously tinted window at some clouds isn’t what people think of when they hear “window seat”.
Like… I kinda agree that “window seat” doesn’t actually mean you have a window these days. I would argue that they should be renamed but “wall seat” is going to just make people realize why aisle seats are the best choice… and I like my aisle seat so piss off.
That’s fine. I’ll take wall seat, as long as I’m not paying extra for a window that doesn’t exist. As a big and tall guy, wall seat means the drink cart doesn’t hit my shoulder because of how narrow the seats are. It means I don’t have to struggle out of my seat every time someone in the row needs to use the bathroom
I rode a 787 intercontinentally for the first time earlier this year and was very disappointed by the forced tint. I was really excited to see, I believe, the arctic ice cap. Nothing. Like, I get it’s a long flight and apparently most people just take drugs and sleep, but damn. I would have shielded it with my jacket anyway.
But even still, know how I deal with wanting to nod off when a 4am flight hits day break? A $6 sleep mask. I’m not affected by windows, reading lamps, the crew flicking the lights for fun, that one person typing in Word at full brightness on a red eye flight, or people using flashlights to search their bag.
Who the fuck wants a window on their seat?
It literally does. Otherwise we would call it a fuselage seat.
“War is peace”
That’s what they are trying to pull. Look it up.
According to the airline, “window” refers only to the seat’s location next to the aircraft wall
Then call it “wall seat”
It’s like trying to call the non runway parts of airports ramps, aprons and taxiways. Because technically none of it is made with tarmac anymore but the general population is too stupid to go back so now that’s what it’s all called.
This wouldn’t be a problem if they left the seats where they were from the factory instead of squashing them all as close together as possible.
