PASSENGERS FILE “UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES” COMPLAINTS
April 13, 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 March 17, 2026, a formal DOT complaint was filed against American Airlines alleging that the carrier engaged in “unfair or deceptive practices” by advertising that passengers purchasing tickets at added cost could select their seat regardless of the flight operator. After paying to select seats on two multi-city tickets, the complainant contends that she was unable to select her seats on American-ticketed flights which were operated by a foreign air carrier unless the passenger first agreed to pay additional charges. As asserted by the complainant, references to “non-refundable” charges during the booking process and American’s own advertised benefits by fare were violative of consumer protection regulations. To remedy such violations, the passenger requested a formal DOT investigation into the carrier’s advertising practices and a full refund since she was not permitted to select her seats as advertised. A similar “unfair or deceptive practices” complaint was filed on March 15, 2026, claiming that All Nippon Airways employed “website loopholes” and obstructive customer service tactics to avoid DOT regulatory obligations. Specifically, the complainant asserted that ANA intentionally routes U.S. consumers to the carrier’s Japanese website rather than the U.S. website to avoid DOT’s advertising and refund requirements. Like the American complainant, the passenger demands that OACP investigate ANA’s “deceptive” tactics when advertising air transportation services.
Importantly, both formal complaints cite to 49 U.S.C. § 41712 (“Section 41712”) as the legal mechanism by which DOT can hold carriers accountable. As the primary source of statutory authority to regulate airline consumer practices, Section 41712 prohibits U.S. air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents from engaging in “unfair or deceptive practices” and “unfair methods of competition” in air transportation. While the former Biden administration broadly applied Section 41712 to regulate U.S. and foreign air carrier conduct, President Trump and Secretary Duffy prefer a narrower interpretation of “unfair or deceptive practices” consistent with the Trump administration’s deregulatory stance. Depending on how American and ANA respond to each complaint, DOT may take this opportunity to clarify the terms “unfair” and “deceptive” as intended within the statutory authority. Doing so would provide clear guidance to industry on the current enforcement policy regarding the advertising of air transportation service to or from the United States by foreign air carriers.
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; Andrew Orr at 202.659.6625 or aorr@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
