A proposed class-action lawsuit against JetBlue Airways has raised significant concerns regarding the airline’s seat selection policies. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by California resident Saman Kohanof on 31 August. Kohanof alleges that the airline charged him extra for a “free seat selection” benefit, only for JetBlue to assign him a seat without giving him the opportunity to choose.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/jetblue-plane-person-buying-tickets-091626-e5c42d2165b14743af987b3e6d00959c.jpg)
The lawsuit stems from a flight that Kohanof booked in February, flying from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Los Angeles. During the booking process on JetBlue’s mobile app, Kohanof encountered several fare options, each accompanied by benefits and restrictions. He opted for a fare labelled “Blue,” priced at £379, which advertised “free seat selection.” In contrast, a cheaper “Basic Blue” fare was noted as not offering any seat selection.
Upon completing his purchase, Kohanof anticipated being prompted to select his preferred seat. However, he claims that no options were presented for him to exercise this right. Instead, he was assigned a seat by JetBlue without any prior notice—a situation that he argues is equivalent to the treatment received by customers who purchased the cheaper Blue Basic fare, which explicitly states that free seat selection is not included.
According to the lawsuit, Kohanof was not given a refund, credit, or any adjustment to his fare due to the absence of the promised seat-selection options. He contends that had he been informed that seat selection would not be available, he would have either chosen a less expensive fare or made alternate arrangements altogether.
The complaint does not dispute JetBlue’s right to withhold or alter seat availability for operational reasons. Rather, it focuses on the airline’s failure to provide the seat-selection opportunity that was advertised as part of the Blue fare. Kohanof’s legal team has asserted that JetBlue could have communicated more clearly by either removing “free seat selection” from their displayed benefits or indicating specific conditions attached to that benefit.
The lawsuit is seeking over £5 million in damages, which would be distributed to a proposed class of potentially thousands of passengers who might have been affected by similar practices. Kohanof’s legal action highlights a growing dissatisfaction with airline transparency, particularly concerning fare structures and the associated benefits.
JetBlue has already begun changes to its fare structure in light of various customer concerns. In July, the airline announced that it would phase out the use of “Blue” and “Blue Basic” fare labels, replacing them with new categories such as Main Base, Main, and Main Flex. Under this new structure, seat selection is not included with the Main Base fare but is offered with both Main and Main Flex options.
As this legal case unfolds, it raises broader questions about consumer rights and the obligations of airlines to deliver services as advertised. Kohanof’s lawsuit may serve as a catalyst for further scrutiny of airline practices regarding pricing and passenger services, bringing to light the importance of clear communication in an industry often characterised by complexity.
As the aviation sector continues to recover from the impacts of the pandemic, issues surrounding fare transparency and customer service are likely to remain at the forefront of discussions among consumers and regulators alike. JetBlue is expected to respond to these allegations, and further developments in this case will be closely monitored by passengers and stakeholders in the airline industry.