United windowless window seat lawsuit: ruling, status, Delta case

Estimated reading time: 13 minutes.

Key facts

Case: Brenman v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-06995-JD, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco), before U.S. District Judge James Donato.
Ruling: On July 6, 2026, Judge Donato denied United's motion to dismiss in full. All four claims in the amended complaint survived, and the court rejected United's federal preemption defense.
What the case is about: The plaintiffs allege United charged extra for seats labeled "window" that sit next to a solid wall, and that this breached United's contracts with those passengers. United's position is that "window" describes where a seat is, not a promised view.
Current status: United filed its answer on July 20, 2026. The case is in discovery. No class has been certified, and no court has decided whether United did anything wrong.
Who is included: No one yet. The plaintiffs propose a nationwide class of people who paid extra for a United window seat and received a windowless one, plus a California subclass.
Next deadline: Under the court's scheduling order, the last day to file a motion for class certification is December 23, 2026. A jury trial is set for October 18, 2027.
Money: There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. There is nothing to file at this time.
Related case: A similar proposed class action against Delta Air Lines is pending in federal court in Brooklyn. Delta's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed since January 2026, and the docket shows no ruling as of October 14, 2026.

What the judge decided

A federal judge in San Francisco has allowed a proposed class action over United Airlines "window seats" without windows to go forward. In a four-page order dated July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote: "Dismissal is denied."

United had asked the court to throw out the plaintiffs' first amended complaint on two grounds. First, it argued that a federal aviation law, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, blocks the claims. Second, it argued that the complaint did not state a plausible claim. The judge rejected both arguments.

On the contract question, the order points to United's own Contract of Carriage, the document that sets the terms of travel. The judge noted that both sides agree it incorporates the "terms and conditions printed on or in any ticket." The order then reasons that the boarding pass "expressly states a window seat was purchased" and that the reservation screen made "unequivocal representations" at booking. "These terms plausibly establish that United expressly agreed to provide a seat with a window to passengers who paid for one," Judge Donato wrote. "No more is needed at this stage for the breach claims to go forward."

The ruling did not decide what "window seat" means. United argued the term describes a seat's location relative to the aisle. The judge said that argument "raises a question of fact outside the four corners" of the complaint, so it could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The ruling was issued on July 6, 2026. Since then, United has answered the complaint and the case has moved deeper into discovery, the pretrial exchange of evidence.

Who the parties are

United Airlines, Inc. is a major U.S. airline headquartered in Chicago and a subsidiary of United Airlines Holdings, Inc., according to the amended complaint. Passengers deal with United mostly through its website, mobile app, and boarding passes, which is where the complaint says the "window" labels appeared. The complaint notes that San Francisco International Airport is one of United's hubs.

The amended complaint, filed October 15, 2025, named five plaintiffs: Marc Brenman of San Francisco, Aviva Copaken of Los Angeles, Sean Minyard of Marin County, California, Robert Monroe of Honolulu, and Cindy Pawlowski of Bluff City, Tennessee. Since the ruling, Copaken (July 17, 2026) and Minyard (August 11, 2026) have voluntarily dismissed their individual claims, according to the docket. Brenman, Monroe, and Pawlowski remain as proposed class representatives.

The plaintiffs are represented by Greenbaum Olbrantz LLP, including Carter E. Greenbaum and Casey Olbrantz. The same firm filed the Delta case.

Why some window seats have no window

According to the complaint, many aircraft have one or more seats in the window position that sit next to a blank wall panel, or next to a window so misaligned that it is not reasonably usable. The complaint calls these "Windowless Window Seats."

The complaint says these seats exist for reasons tied to each plane's design. It alleges that certain United Boeing 737 and Airbus A321 models have air conditioning ducts running through a side panel that prevent a window in certain rows. It also quotes Alaska Airlines' website, which describes vertical air conditioning ducts behind the sidewall panels that "prevent the installation of a window."

The complaint gives examples of affected seats. It says the windowless seat is 11A on some United Boeing 737-900s, and 10A or 12A on others. It lists 29A, 11F, 29F, and 8A on other aircraft. It alleges that more than 20 aircraft types in United's fleet have at least one such seat, including the Airbus A319, A320, A321, and A330-300, Boeing 717, 737, 757, 767, 777, and 787 variants, and several Bombardier and Embraer regional jets.

What the lawsuit alleges

The plaintiffs' core claim is that United sold seats as "window" seats, collected extra money for them, and then seated passengers next to a wall.

The complaint describes how United charges for seat selection. It says that since about 2017, Basic Economy passengers must pay to upgrade to standard Economy to choose a seat, with fees starting at $15 on small regional flights and reaching up to $200 for a trip to Europe. It alleges that United charges more for "preferred" and Economy Plus seats, and that window and aisle seats generally cost more than middle seats. It cites a Senate report finding United collected $1.3 billion from seat fees in 2023.

The complaint includes app screenshots it says show United describing seats 10A and 11A on a Boeing 737-800 as "Window" seats and charging between $44.99 and $159.99 for them. It alleges Copaken paid upgrade fees between $45.99 and $169.99 for windowless seats. It says Minyard paid an extra $52.99 for a seat labeled "window" on a flight to Kona, Hawaii, that turned out to have none. It quotes a 2022 United customer service message that apologized for "the misrepresentation of seat 11A as a window seat" and refunded a $159.99 upgrade fee.

The complaint also alleges that American Airlines and Alaska Airlines warn passengers when a seat has "no window view," and that United did not do so until after the lawsuit was filed. It says United then began labeling "certain (but not all)" of these seats "No Window."

The amended complaint pleads four claims: two breach of contract counts, a breach of implied contract count, and promissory estoppel. The original August 19, 2025 complaint also included a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. That consumer protection claim does not appear in the amended complaint, so the case now rests entirely on contract theories. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages.

These are allegations

The facts in this section come from the plaintiffs' complaints. United disputes the claims, and no court or jury has decided whether United breached any contract.

The legal questions in plain English

Motion to dismiss. Early in a case, a defendant can ask the court to dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it fails to state a legal claim. The judge assumes the complaint's factual allegations are true and asks only whether they describe a claim the law recognizes. Denying the motion means the case continues. It does not mean the plaintiffs are right.

Airline Deregulation Act preemption. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) bars states from enacting or enforcing laws "related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier." Preemption means a federal law overrides state law, which can wipe out state-law claims against airlines. The order explains that the U.S. Supreme Court has held this does not cover an airline's own voluntary promises. Citing American Airlines v. Wolens and a Ninth Circuit decision, the judge wrote that "state law breach of contract claims are not preempted." Because every claim here arises from contracts or promises United made, "No state action is in question here," and "preemption is not in play."

Breach of contract. Under California law, which the parties cited, a plaintiff must show a contract, their own performance, the defendant's breach, and resulting damages. The order says United disputed only the breach element.

Implied contract and promissory estoppel. An implied contract is a promise shown by conduct rather than words. Promissory estoppel can make a clear promise enforceable when someone reasonably relied on it and was harmed. The judge found both plausibly alleged as alternatives to the main contract claims. The order notes that the court followed California law "for present purposes, without definitively deciding choice of law."

A ruling on the pleadings, not on liability

Judge Donato decided only that the complaint states plausible claims. He did not find that United broke its contracts or owes anyone money.

Timeline and where the case stands

August 19, 2025: The original complaint is filed against United in San Francisco. A separate complaint against Delta is filed the same day in Brooklyn.
October 15, 2025: The plaintiffs file their first amended complaint against United.
November 2025: United moves to dismiss. On November 24, Judge Donato sets the case schedule.
January 20, 2026: The court takes the motion under submission without a hearing.
July 6, 2026: The court denies United's motion to dismiss.
July 20, 2026: United files its answer to the amended complaint.
July 27, 2026: The court denies United's request for discovery into plaintiffs' physical and psychological conditions and travel history, writing that "All of the claims alleged by plaintiffs sound in contract."
August to October 2026: The parties exchange discovery letter briefs. Recent entries include filings on October 2 and October 12, 2026.
December 23, 2026: Last day to file a motion for class certification, under the scheduling order.
October 18, 2027: Jury trial date.

Browse other cases you can join.

The parallel lawsuit against Delta

Greenbaum Olbrantz filed a similar proposed class action against Delta Air Lines on August 19, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No. 1:25-cv-04608-RER-SDE. It is assigned to U.S. District Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. and Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz. The original named plaintiff, Nicholas Meyer, dismissed his claims in May 2026. Anthony Bernardo, Leah Roberts, and Justin Valentine remain.

According to the plaintiffs' October 2025 letter to the court, the amended Delta complaint pleads breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and promissory estoppel. Delta has argued that its Contract of Carriage contains no promise about windows, that its rules bar the claims, and that the claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.

Delta's motion to dismiss was fully briefed in January 2026. The docket reviewed for this article shows no ruling on it as of October 14, 2026. Meanwhile, discovery is proceeding. On August 27, 2026, the court extended fact discovery to December 22, 2026 and all discovery to March 5, 2027. A status conference was scheduled for October 14, 2026. The Independent reported that a Delta spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.

Who may be affected

The plaintiffs propose a nationwide class of "All persons and entities in the United States that purchased airfare from United and remitted additional consideration to obtain a window seat, but received a Windowless Window Seat." They also propose a California subclass for people in California or who traveled to or through California. The complaint estimates United "likely sold over a million" such seats.

Paying extra, under the proposed definition, could include more than a cash seat fee. The complaint says passengers also paid with upgrade fees, frequent flyer miles, and co-branded credit card benefits. These definitions are only proposals. The court has not certified any class.

There is no claim form

No settlement exists and no one is collecting claims. If you paid for a United window seat that had no window, keeping your receipts and boarding passes is reasonable, but there is nothing to file now.

What remains disputed

The central question is still open: what does "window seat" mean in United's contracts? United argued in its motion that the word identifies a position. The Independent, citing Reuters, quoted United's filing as saying the word "identifies the position of the seat" and "cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view." The court said that is a factual question for later.

Class treatment is also contested ground. The complaint acknowledges that United's Contract of Carriage includes a provision, Rule 3(P), saying passengers may sue only individually and not as part of a class action. The plaintiffs allege that waiver is unenforceable. The court has not ruled on it.

United's public response has been limited. The Independent reported that United declined to comment on the suit but said that "in 2025 we added more detail to our seat selection process, so customers can have more information about what to expect when they choose a seat." The docket also shows the parties jointly designated a private mediator in December 2025. No settlement has been reported.

What happens next

The plaintiffs must file any motion for class certification by December 23, 2026. Class certification is the step where a judge decides whether one or a few people can sue on behalf of a larger group. United's response is due January 27, 2027, and the plaintiffs' reply February 10, 2027. Expert discovery is scheduled to close November 25, 2026.

If a class is certified, class members would typically receive notice and a chance to opt out. Dispositive motions, which can end a case before trial, are due June 25, 2027. The trial is set for October 18, 2027. The court has warned that its dates are firm and denied a joint request to modify the schedule in June 2026, though later orders could still change it.

In the Delta case, the next steps are a ruling on Delta's motion to dismiss and the close of discovery.

Frequently asked questions

Did the judge rule that United broke the law?

No. Judge Donato ruled only that the complaint plausibly alleges breach of contract and related claims. Whether United actually breached its contracts has not been decided.

Can I join the United window seat lawsuit?

Not directly right now. The case is a proposed class action, and no class has been certified. If the court certifies a class, people who fit the definition would generally be notified about their rights.

Is there a settlement or payout?

No. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim process in either the United or the Delta case.

Why don't some window seats have windows?

The complaint says aircraft design is the cause. It alleges that on certain Boeing 737 and Airbus A321 models, air conditioning ducts behind the side panel prevent a window in certain rows.

What did United say about the lawsuit?

The Independent reported that United declined to comment on the suit but said it added more detail to its seat selection process in 2025. In court, United argued that "window" describes a seat's position, not a guaranteed view.

What is happening with the Delta lawsuit?

It is pending in federal court in Brooklyn. Delta's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed since January 2026 with no ruling on the docket as of October 14, 2026, and discovery is set to run into March 2027.