Maryland: In a significant legal victory for United Airlines, a federal court in Maryland dismissed a class-action lawsuit accusing the airline of misleading consumers with its environmental marketing, particularly its claims about using Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). The case, filed by Maryland resident Alexander Zajac, hinged on United’s assertions that it would be “100% green” and “carbon neutral by 2050.” Zajac argued that these claims, along with the airline’s “Eco-Skies” program, were deceptive, as the SAF used constituted only a tiny fraction of United’s total fuel consumption.
Zajac’s lawsuit sought relief under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), arguing that United’s misleading claims led him and others to pay more for flights under the false belief that they were supporting more environmentally friendly air travel. However, United’s defense relied on the Airline Deregulation Act, a federal law that broadly preempts state laws related to airline rates, routes, or services.
The court agreed with United, finding that Zajac’s claims were inherently tied to the airline’s services and pricing, and thus preempted by federal law. The judge noted that while consumers might feel misled, their primary recourse would be through federal channels, such as the Department of Transportation, rather than through state consumer protection laws.
The court’s ruling underscores the challenges that consumers face in holding airlines accountable for their environmental claims. The Airline Deregulation Act, designed to foster competition and innovation in the airline industry, has the effect of limiting the ability of consumers to seek redress for misleading marketing practices at the state level.
Analysis: This case highlights a significant gap in consumer protection when it comes to environmental claims made by airlines. While United’s marketing strategies may raise ethical questions, the legal framework under the Airline Deregulation Act severely limits the ability of consumers to challenge such practices in court. This ruling could set a precedent that makes it harder for consumers to hold airlines accountable for greenwashing—misleading marketing that exaggerates environmental benefits—through state-level legal actions.
“This ruling highlights the challenges consumers face in holding airlines accountable for environmental claims under state law, given the broad preemption powers of the Airline Deregulation Act.”
Critics argue that this decision leaves consumers with little recourse, effectively allowing airlines to make broad environmental claims with minimal oversight. As the aviation industry continues to face pressure to reduce its carbon footprint, the role of federal regulation versus state consumer protection laws will likely remain a contentious issue.
Source: United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 8:23-cv-03145
