Delta and United Sued Over Windowless Window Seats

Two proposed class-action lawsuits filed in August 2025 accuse Delta Air Lines and United Airlines of charging passengers extra for “window” seats that sit against solid walls with no window at all. The windowless window seat lawsuits, brought by the New York firm Greenbaum Olbrantz LLP, allege breach of contract and deceptive practices, and as of mid-2026 both cases remain active in federal court with motions to dismiss pending and a proposed trial date of June 7, 2027.¹

What the Passengers Are Claiming

The two complaints were filed on August 19, 2025. Meyer v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Case No. 1:25-cv-04608) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Brenman et al. v. United Airlines, Inc. (Case No. 3:25-cv-06995) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.²

The theory is simple. When a passenger pays extra on the airline’s website or app to select a “window” seat, they expect a seat with a window. On certain aircraft, the suits say, some seats labeled “window” have no window because air conditioning ducts, electrical conduits, or other structural components fill the space where the window would go. The airlines know this and still charge a premium for those seats without any disclosure.³

The premiums are real money. According to the complaints, Delta passengers may pay upward of $70 more than a basic economy fare for a window seat, and United charges over $50 on domestic flights and over $100 on international routes. Each airline has “likely sold more than a million” windowless window seats, the plaintiffs estimate, based on the number of affected aircraft and their daily flight counts.⁴

Named plaintiff Nicholas Meyer, a Brooklyn resident, paid extra for window seats on a round trip from LaGuardia to Orange County in August 2025. On his second leg, aboard a Boeing 757-200 from Atlanta, he reached seat 23F and found himself next to a blank wall for the four-and-a-half-hour flight.⁵ He alleges he would not have chosen that seat or paid the fee had Delta disclosed the missing window.⁶

Why Some Window Seats Have No Window

Fuselage windows are placed at fixed intervals during manufacturing, but airlines choose their own seat pitch when configuring cabins. When the spacing doesn’t line up, a wall-adjacent seat can land between two windows or in front of a blank panel. In many rows, vertical air conditioning riser ducts run from the aircraft’s belly to the cabin ceiling behind the sidewall, making a window in that spot physically impossible.⁷

The suits identify Boeing 737s, Boeing 757s, and Airbus A321s as aircraft in Delta’s fleet with at least one wall-adjacent seat that has no window. Those three types reportedly make up about half of Delta’s roughly 1,000-plane fleet.⁸ United’s affected aircraft include the Boeing 737-800 and the 767-300 Polaris cabin, where flight attendants have noted specific seats without windows.⁹

What the Airlines Are Arguing

Both carriers have moved to dismiss. United filed first, on November 10, 2025, arguing that “the use of the word ‘window’ in reference to a particular seat cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view.” In United’s telling, “window” describes a seat’s position in the row, next to the wall, and its contract of carriage makes no promise about a view.¹⁰ Delta filed its own motion to dismiss on January 28, 2026, attaching its contract of carriage.¹¹

Lead plaintiffs’ attorney Carter Greenbaum called United’s position “empty promises and United’s word games” that are “contrary to the reasonable expectations of countless passengers who unknowingly paid extra money for windowless window seats.”¹⁰

What the Cases Ask For

The Delta complaint centers on breach of contract, alleging that labeling a seat “window” and accepting extra payment created a contract to deliver a seat with an actual window.⁵ The United complaint adds unfair competition under California law, breach of implied contract, and breach of a self-imposed undertaking.¹²

Both suits seek compensatory damages, restitution of the premiums paid, and attorneys’ fees. The Delta complaint also seeks punitive damages. The United complaint asks for a public injunction requiring the airline to disclose windowless seats going forward. Both propose nationwide classes of U.S. passengers who paid extra for a window seat and got one without a window, and the United case adds a California subclass.⁴

Where the Cases Stand

In the United case, Judge James Donato in the Northern District of California took the motion to dismiss under submission on the papers in January 2026 and canceled a scheduled hearing. As of mid-June 2026, no ruling had been issued.¹³

The Delta case has been amended to add three plaintiffs (Justin Valentine, Anthony Bernardo, and Leah Roberts), which is why some court documents use the caption Bernardo et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. The original named plaintiff, Nicholas Meyer, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in May 2026, but the case continues with the remaining plaintiffs. A proposed trial date of June 7, 2027 is on the calendar.¹¹

How Other Airlines Handle the Same Problem

A key argument in both complaints is that Delta and United could disclose the issue with little effort. American Airlines and Alaska Airlines operate Boeing 737s with the same windowless-seat quirk and already notify passengers during booking when a selected seat lacks a window view.¹⁴ Alaska publicly addressed the issue as early as 2019, explaining on its website that every plane in its Boeing fleet has one or two seats on the left side forward of the wing with partial or no window access.⁷

The Delta complaint also points out that Delta already warns passengers about other seat drawbacks during booking, such as “Limited Recline.” The plaintiffs argue this shows the airline has the tools to disclose a missing window and has chosen not to.⁵

Is There a Federal Rule Covering This

No federal regulation specifically requires airlines to disclose whether a given seat has a window. The Department of Transportation finalized a rule in April 2024 called “Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees,” but it covers baggage, change, and cancellation fees, not seat-selection features.¹⁵ Industry groups asked DOT to fold seating fees into that rule; the agency declined.¹⁶ Without a federal disclosure mandate, the plaintiffs are relying on contract law and state consumer-protection statutes to argue that the airlines’ own labeling created an obligation they failed to honor.

1
New York Post. Airlines Claim Passengers Who Pay Extra for Window Seats Are Not Entitled to a View
2
CNN. Delta, United Sued Over Selling Windowless Window Seats
3
The New York Times. Delta, United Airlines Window Seat Lawsuits
4
ClassAction.org. United, Delta Facing Lawsuits Over Allegedly Unfair Windowless Window Seat Fees
5
U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. Meyer v. Delta Air Lines, Class Action Complaint
6
The Washington Post. Window Seat Fee Delta United Lawsuit
7
NBC Bay Area. Lawsuit Windowless Window Seat Fees
8
ABC News. Passengers Filing Suits Windowless Window Seats Delta United
9
InsideHook. Window Seat Doesn’t Have Window
10
Business Insider. United Airlines Wants Windowless Window Seats Lawsuit Dismissed
11
CourtListener. Meyer v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Docket
12
Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP. Airlines Sued for Windowless Window Seats
13
CourtListener. Brenman v. United Airlines, Inc., Docket
14
Courthouse News Service. Passengers Sue Delta, United Over Windowless Window Seats
15
U.S. Department of Transportation. Enhancing Transparency of Airline Ancillary Service Fees
16
ASTA. Member Update DOT Ancillary Fees Final Rule