OACP DISMISSES AVIATION CONSUMER PROTECTION-RELATED PASSENGER COMPLAINTS
July 20, 2026
Eckert Seamans has prepared the information in this update for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice nor substitute for legal advice. Neither your receipt of information from this website nor your use of this website to contact Eckert Seamans or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship, as the firm may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter. Accordingly, you should not provide confidential information to Eckert Seamans. Persons seeking legal advice should consult a licensed professional attorney in their state. The firm’s Terms of Use, Legal Notice, and Disclaimer detailed herein are expressly incorporated into the Aviation Regulatory Update.
On June 12, 2026, DOT’s Office of Aviation Consumer Protection dismissed several complaints initially filed against foreign air carriers asserting a myriad of consumer protection violations. The following two dismissals highlight the importance of defending against DOT complaints when warranted by the facts because doing so can prevent protracted enforcement proceedings:
- Order 2026-6-7 – A passenger contended that Turkish Airlines engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 by failing to provide a passenger’s child with adequate accommodations following a flight delay. Despite those assertions, DOT found that Turkish did not engage in an unfair or deceptive practice because the carrier undertook reasonable efforts to mitigate the delay’s impact in compliance with its Customer Service Plan and Conditions of Carriage. When dismissing the complaint against Turkish, DOT cited to the fact that the carrier rebooked the affected passengers on the next available flight and provided meal vouchers even though such vouchers were not required by DOT rules. For clarity among regulated entities, OACP explained that 14 C.F.R. 250 only requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to provide compensation to affected passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding when the flight at issue is oversold. In this instance, DOT dismissed the complaint because Turkish acted promptly to mitigate the flight delay at issue and provided compensation in excess of what was required by law.
- Order 2026-6-8 – Lufthansa also faced an unfair and deceptive practices claim from a passenger who asserted that the carrier violated the Montreal Convention when it failed to promptly reimburse him for damage caused by delay of his checked baggage. While DOT acknowledged that a violation of the Montreal Convention generally constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice, the factual record did not support such a finding against Lufthansa because the carrier fully reimbursed the passenger up to applicable liability limits for interim expenses during the delay of his checked baggage and thus satisfied its obligations under the Montreal Convention. DOT’s dismissal of the Lufthansa complaint underscored the importance of reimbursing passengers for their provable expenses under the Montreal Convention because doing so can effectively moot a complaint alleging noncompliance with a carrier’s liability for damage caused by delay of his or her checked baggage.
This Aviation Blog Post is intended to keep readers current on developments in the law. It is not intended to be legal advice. If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr at 202.659.6622 or esahr@eckertseamans.com; Drew Derco at 202.659.6665 or dderco@eckertseamans.com; Tyler Myers at 202.659.6642 or trmyers@eckertseamans.com, or any other attorney at Eckert Seamans with whom you have been working.
Share This Post
Authors
