JetBlue free seat selection lawsuit (Kohanof v. JetBlue Airways)

A California passenger has filed a proposed class action saying JetBlue sold him a more expensive fare advertised with "Free seat selection" and then gave him no seat to choose. The case, Kohanof v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-09701, was filed August 31, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit seeks to represent JetBlue customers across the country who bought a fare that promised free advance seat selection but, according to JetBlue's own records, had no standard seat available to pick without paying extra before the airline assigned one. JetBlue filed a motion to dismiss on October 29, 2026, with a hearing set for December 14, 2026.

The claims are allegations. No court has ruled on them, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form.

The defendant is JetBlue Airways Corporation, a Delaware corporation based in Long Island City, New York, that sells air travel throughout the United States, according to the complaint. JetBlue is represented by Bradford G. Hughes, with M. Roy Goldberg admitted to appear from out of state, according to the court docket.

The plaintiff is Saman Kohanof, a California resident who bought his ticket for personal travel. He is represented by Leon Ozeran of the Law Offices of Leon Ozeran in Valley Village, California. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder, with Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi.

According to the complaint, Kohanof used the JetBlue mobile app to buy a Blue fare, priced at about $379, for a February 8, 2026, flight from Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport. The cheaper Blue Basic fare was labeled "No free seat selection." The Blue fare was labeled "Free seat selection."

The complaint says JetBlue gave no warning before payment that no standard seats were available to select on his flight. After he paid, Kohanof tried to choose a seat and found none available without an extra charge. JetBlue then assigned him a seat, which the complaint calls "the same treatment JetBlue provides to purchasers of the lower-priced Blue Basic fare." He says JetBlue did not refund, credit or adjust his fare.

The complaint also says JetBlue was on notice of the issue. It cites a December 7, 2025, Better Business Bureau complaint in which another Blue customer said JetBlue advertised free seat selection, then offered only paid seats and told the customer a seat would be assigned at check-in.

In July 2026, JetBlue renamed its fares. Blue became "Main" and Blue Basic became "Main Base." The complaint says the new Main fare still lists seat selection as included, so the same problem could continue under the new names.

Docket milestones:

• August 31, 2026: complaint filed.
• September 14, 2026: JetBlue served.
• September 23, 2026: the parties agreed to extend JetBlue's response deadline to November 4, 2026.
• October 29, 2026: JetBlue filed a motion to dismiss, set for hearing December 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Kohanof says seat selection was a specific, paid-for feature that set the Blue fare apart from Blue Basic. The complaint stresses what it is not claiming: it "does not allege that JetBlue was required to guarantee any particular seat number," and it accepts that JetBlue may hold back seats for operational reasons. Its argument is that JetBlue should not take payment for a fare advertised with free seat selection when it knows no seat can be selected, without saying so first.

To support the idea that seat selection is a contractual benefit, the complaint quotes JetBlue's own court filings in two earlier cases, including a statement in Ungar v. JetBlue that the Blue fare "entitled her to free advance seat selection." It proposes measuring damages by the seat-selection fee JetBlue charges Blue Basic passengers for the same seats.

The complaint brings three claims: breach of express contract, breach of implied-in-fact contract and promissory estoppel. It alleges more than $5 million is at stake for the class.

JetBlue's motion to dismiss is not publicly available, so its legal arguments are not known. In a statement to Simple Flying, JetBlue declined to comment on pending litigation but said: "JetBlue would never intentionally mislead our customers, and we work to clearly communicate the benefits included with each of our fare options."

The court has not ruled on anything substantive. The docket shows procedural orders only, including permission for JetBlue's out-of-state lawyer to appear. Judge Snyder will consider JetBlue's motion to dismiss, which asks the court to end the case at the outset. Whether JetBlue broke any promise, and whether the case can go forward as a class action, are undecided.

The complaint proposes three groups. None has been approved by the court:

• Nationwide class: people in the United States who, within the applicable time limit, bought a JetBlue fare advertised as including free advance seat selection, and for whom JetBlue's records show no standard seat was available to select without an extra charge before JetBlue assigned a seat.
• California subclass: class members who live in California or bought the fare in California.
• Mobile app subclass: class members who bought the fare through the JetBlue app.

JetBlue, its affiliates, officers and directors, the assigned judges and their families, and anyone who opts out of a certified class are excluded. The complaint does not set a specific start date. It says "applicable limitations period."

There is no claim form. If you paid for a Blue, Main or similar fare and could not pick a seat without paying more, you can:

• Save your confirmation email, fare receipt and any screenshots of the fare options or seat map.
• Keep records of any extra seat fee you paid or any messages with JetBlue about seat selection.
• Watch for court rulings, especially on the December 14 motion hearing.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks for compensatory and benefit-of-the-bargain damages, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. It suggests the seat-selection fee JetBlue charged other passengers as a benchmark for each person's loss, but no amount has been awarded or offered.

• November 4, 2026: JetBlue's agreed deadline to respond to the complaint. It has responded with a motion to dismiss.
• December 14, 2026: scheduled hearing on the motion to dismiss before Judge Snyder.
• No claim deadline: there is no settlement.
• Your rights: if a class is certified, members would get notice explaining how to stay in or opt out.

• Seat selection vs. seat assignment: selection means the passenger chooses a seat; assignment means the airline picks it. The complaint relies on this difference.
• Benefit of the bargain: damages meant to give a buyer the value of what was promised.
• Promissory estoppel: a claim that a clear promise should be enforced because someone reasonably relied on it.
• Motion to dismiss: a request to end a case because the complaint does not state a legal claim.

Kohanof will file a response to JetBlue's motion, and Judge Snyder will decide whether some or all claims can continue. If the case survives, it would move to evidence gathering and a request for class certification. A settlement is possible at any point, but none has been reported.

This article relies on the filed complaint, the court docket and JetBlue's statement as reported by Simple Flying. JetBlue's motion to dismiss and its exhibits were not available for review. All descriptions of Kohanof's booking and of JetBlue's fare displays come from the complaint and have not been tested in court. We do not know how many passengers had the same experience.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.