Judge Rules for United Airlines in Lawsuit Alleging Misleading Climate Claims

A United airlines plane taxis at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in Los Angeles on Jan. 4, 2024. Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images

A lawsuit against United Airlines accusing the company of making misleading claims about its environmental actions is preempted by federal law, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled on Aug. 13.

The allegation that United violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, according to the judge.

The Deregulation Act bars states from putting into place or enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.”

A separate ruling has said the law’s purpose is to “leave largely to the airlines themselves ... the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services.”

Maryland flier Alexander Zajac brought the suit against United in 2023, detailing how he chose to fly on a United flight because of the company’s promotion of environmental initiatives such as going “100 percent green” by 2050 and being the first company to utilize “100 percent sustainable aviation fuel,” or biofuel.

Describing the fuel as sustainable “is misleading because this conveys general environmental benefits this fuel lacks,” Zajac said. He also said United’s emphasis on the biofuel is misleading because out of 4 billion gallons of fuel the airline uses each year, only 1 million gallons come from biofuels.

Zajac asked the court to certify his complaint as a class action.

United requested dismissal of the case, citing the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).

“The United States Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has held that the ADA preempts fraud and state-law consumer protection claims arising out of the manner in which airlines market their services—exactly the claims plaintiff attempts to bring here,” it stated in a motion.

Zajac disagreed, noting that some courts have found that certain fraud and consumer protection claims related to prices and services fall outside of the act. He also pointed to a ruling that found the ADA doesn’t “prevent the enforcement of state laws with only a tangential relation to an air carrier’s operations.”

Xinis sided with United.

“Reading the complaint most favorably to Zajac and the putative class, United’s alleged misrepresentations were aimed at inducing consumers to fly United at higher ticket prices,” the judge wrote. That means the claim relates to United’s providing transportation services, which has been deemed by courts as covered by the ADA, she said.

“The claim must be dismissed,” she wrote.

The judge dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled.

“Given the broad reach of the Deregulation Act’s preemption provision,” Xinis said, “the court cannot see how Zajac could amend the claim to escape dismissal.”