Three NGOs claim that a KLM advertising campaign violates European consumer law. The lawsuit comes as litigation over greenwashing claims is on the rise. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the most obvious context in which the legality of security searches at airports is determined. As with airport security searches, the role of the Fourth Amendment is to balance privacy and law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of persons to be free from improper searches and seizures of their persons, homes, papers and property” by stipulating that any search must take place for reasonable reasons. In addition to the adequacy of the reasons, courts usually assess three aspects of a search to determine whether the search is appropriate: the degree of intrusion of the search procedure; the extent and frequency of the threat; and the sufficiency of alternatives to conduct a search. The courts are also examining the effectiveness of the search in reducing the threat and whether sufficient precautions have been taken to limit the scope of the search as much as possible while maintaining that effectiveness. We support activists Fossielvrij Netherlands and Reclame Fossielvrij in filing a complaint in the Netherlands against the major Dutch airline KLM for misleading marketing that promotes the sustainability of the flight. KLM and the aviation industry continue to aim for growth year after year, relying on a set of speculative future technologies, limited alternative fuels and other imperfect “solutions” to reassure people that flying will be sustainable. In doing so, they are also working intensively against climate regulation in aviation. 2 Some circles believe that “government involvement in the enactment of the FAA anti-kidnapping directive is so widespread that any search conducted under this program is within the scope of the Fourth Amendment” (United States v.
Ross, [9th Cir. 1994]). Other circles believe that research in airlines constitutes private behaviour (United States v. Morgan, [6th Cir. 1985]). There is no general agreement on whether airport searches are carried out by the government or by private bodies. Three NGOs have sued a Dutch subsidiary of Air France KLM over the airline`s environmental claims as greenwashing claims rise. The Airport Security Safety Act directs the FAA to develop and implement better airport security technology. However, legal issues and challenges could arise from the FAA`s approval for the use of new, more invasive passenger screening technologies. In this chapter, the panel addresses in particular the challenges raised in relation to screening technologies currently used at airports or by the introduction of similar screening and search technologies and procedures in other contexts.
The discussion focuses on the nature of these challenges, the identity of the protesters and the judicial responses. For the purposes of the review, the Committee must consider that both the control equipment and the personnel using it are operating effectively. 4 Many legitimate reasons can be given for why a person has traces of explosive or dangerous substances on their hands, including employment in an explosives factory or in certain ski resorts. Thus, this search technique would not only reveal illegal activities. Air travellers who have been harmed may find there is nothing more intimidating than taking legal action against an airline. From the minor inconveniences of flight delays and lost luggage to the overwhelming tragedies of bodily injury and loss of life, a traveler or family must stand up to a seemingly faceless conglomerate. By knowing how to start the legal process, many consumers have found a solution when suing an airline. Trace detection technologies, as they can be specially designed for the detection of hazardous materials, should not pose more legal problems than current passenger screening technologies.
As with imaging techniques, trace detection technologies can detect the presence of certain drugs, as many of them are chemically closely related to explosive substances. Again, privacy issues are raised when innocent documents are identified. Trace detection technologies that can identify chemical signatures can also be used to identify chemical signatures of illicit drugs. Using this feature at the airport would constitute an illegal search, as searches at the airport are only permitted to identify objects or materials that pose a threat to the safety of the aircraft. Air carriers and their contractual security undertakings shall ensure that their equipment is not designed or modified to detect materials that are not considered dangerous goods in the context of airport and aviation security. People may also perceive a health threat or others (such as germs) through trace detection technologies that come into contact with the person, especially if many are contacted without cleaning between people. Criminal prosecution for uncleanliness is possible. Both airlines received government-guaranteed loans signed by EU competition officials at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. “We cannot comment on legal proceedings,” a government spokesman said. The aviation industry has a climate problem. Aviation relies on highly polluting fossil fuels, and expert studies warn that the aviation industry cannot achieve net zero by 2050 and align with climate goals without reducing air traffic. A transatlantic return flight has pretty much the same emissions that an EU person uses to heat their home for a year.
A federal law prevents states from taking action that affects the prices, routes, and services offered by airlines. But the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, ruled last year that state wage laws, which generally apply to all workers, also cover airline employees because they only have an indirect impact on air services. Assuming that improvements to current passenger screening equipment do not significantly alter the passenger-system interface, there should be no reason to expect major differences between current and future legal issues related to non-imaging electromagnetic technologies. In fact, if technology improved so that only threatening objects were identified, there would be less basis to support an allegation of illegal research based on the theory that individuals cannot legitimately expect illegal objects to respect privacy. Technologies designed to more accurately locate and identify threatening objects, with the exception of those that trigger alarms in current systems, reduce some of the legal concerns regarding this type of passenger screening. The analysis of a fourth amendment challenge raises two threshold issues: (1) whether there is a search or seizure, and (2) whether the search or seizure is carried out by the government. (Both concepts are explained in more detail in Appendix C.) If no search or seizure took place, or if it was carried out by a private entity,2 it is not necessary to determine whether this was appropriate under the Fourth Amendment.
