Now Reading
Emirates Loses ‘Deceptive Advertising’ Lawsuit After Passenger Complains About Inferior Business Class Seats

Emirates Loses ‘Deceptive Advertising’ Lawsuit After Passenger Complains About Inferior Business Class Seats

Emirates has lost a ‘deceptive advertising’ lawsuit brought by a passenger in New Zealand who convinced a tribunal that the Dubai-based carrier had sold Business Class tickets by advertising newer, more comfortable seats that weren’t routinely available on flights from Aotearoa.

Mark Morgan had chosen to fly with Emirates with his wife for a trip to England, but once onboard the plane to Dubai, Morgan says he discovered that Emirates was using an older Boeing 777-300 aircraft on the route with Business Class seats that didn’t go fully lie-flat.


The inferior Business Class seat also featured an older inflight system that was prone to malfunctioning, according to Morgan’s complaint to New Zealand’s Dispute Tribunal.

Emirates’ official website for the Kiwi market features images of its latest Boeing 777 Business Class seat, which goes fully flat, features deep padding, has a personal minibar and the latest generation of inflight entertainment systems.

Lawyers representing the airline, however, claimed these images and descriptions didn’t amount to deceptive advertising because there is a notice in small print at the bottom of the Emirates website which warns that the products and services advertised could vary from flight to flight.

For the Kiwi market, the airline was routinely using older Boeing 777 aircraft but Emirates claimed this was because flights to New Zealand were loss-making, so it had chosen to deploy older aircraft on these routes.

In any case, Emirates said the Business Class seat on its older Boeing 777s reclined to 166.1 degrees which was effectively a lie-flat seat for the “ordinary traveller”.

Disputes Tribunal referee Laura Mueller refused to accept Emirates’ argument, saying the website warning should only apply to occasional product changes.

“Emirates advertised a business class service that consumers were very unlikely to receive,” Mueller said in her judgment, as reported by Stuff. “This was the result of advertising a service that they were rarely delivering, not due to an occasional or one-off change of aircraft due to operational requirements.”

Mueller ruled that Emirates had breached The Fair Trading Act 1986, saying that the “advertising of a service that Emirates knew would unlikely be delivered is misleading and deceptive.”

Emirates initially offered Morgan a partial refund of just NZ $786, claiming that the service he received was only a 5 per cent reduction in what had been promised in its advertising.

Morgan, however, sought a more generous partial refund, plus a refund for a First Class upgrade fee (for a fully flat seat). The tribunal sided with Morgan and ordered Emirates to refund him NZ $13,555 by March 27.

View Comments (4)
  • Its not even business class. It is literally everything. I flew at least four times back and fourth and got scammed with super old crappy planes. We pay fortunes to fly with Emirates and we always get scammed. Absolutely unfair. Economy class was horrible. Flying to Europe of course was a different experience since they used the newer planes. My point is hey, its an 18-hour flight, come on…. at least give us comfortable seats.

  • More business class flyers from Emirates ‘loss-making routes should initiate a class suit against the airline for misleading advertising. This will teach them to value customers.

  • And I wonder whether this traveler who won the NZ 13K award will arrive at the airport next time and fond that his confirmed reservations are not in the system . . . but seats are available last minute foranother NZ 13K.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2023 All Rights Reserved.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to with appropriate and specific directions to the original content.