Boeing and Justice Department seek judge's approval for deal opposed by crash victims' families

Boeing and Justice Department Seek Approval for Controversial Deal Amidst Victim Family Objections

Seattle, WA – July 3, 2025 – Boeing (NYSE: BA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have formally requested a U.S. judge to approve a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), a move that would allow the aerospace giant to avoid criminal prosecution stemming from two fatal 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. This request comes despite significant and vocal opposition from the families of the 346 victims who perished in the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 disasters.

The original DPA, struck in January 2021, saw Boeing agree to pay over $2.5 billion in penalties, including a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, compensation payments to airline customers of $1.77 billion, and a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund. The agreement acknowledged Boeing's conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the 737 MAX's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a software system implicated in both crashes. However, the agreement did not include a guilty plea from Boeing itself, nor did it result in charges against any senior executives.

Victim families have consistently argued that the DPA was too lenient and failed to hold Boeing adequately accountable for the lives lost. They contend that the agreement prioritized corporate interests over justice and safety. Their objections gained significant traction, leading to a federal judge's ruling in October 2022 that the families were indeed "crime victims" under federal law and thus had a right to be heard before the DPA could be finalized. This ruling paved the way for the current judicial review.

The core of the families' argument is that Boeing violated the terms of the DPA by failing to implement a compliance and ethics program designed to prevent future fraud and ensure safety. They point to recent incidents, such as the January 2024 mid-air panel blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9, as evidence that Boeing's safety culture remains deeply flawed. This incident, which led to a temporary grounding of certain 737 MAX 9 aircraft and increased scrutiny from regulators, has intensified calls for stricter oversight and accountability.

For Boeing, securing judicial approval of the DPA is crucial. Avoiding criminal prosecution would remove a significant legal cloud that has hung over the company for years, potentially stabilizing its stock and allowing it to focus more squarely on production ramp-up and addressing ongoing quality control issues. However, the continued public and legal pressure from victim families ensures that the company's past actions and current safety practices will remain under intense scrutiny.

The judge's decision will have far-reaching implications. A rejection of the DPA could reopen the possibility of criminal charges against Boeing, potentially leading to further financial penalties and reputational damage. Conversely, approval would likely be seen as a victory for Boeing and the DOJ, but it would undoubtedly deepen the frustration and sense of injustice among the victim families. The outcome will also set a precedent for how corporate accountability is handled in cases involving widespread harm and alleged corporate misconduct.

This legal battle underscores the complex interplay between corporate responsibility, regulatory oversight, and victim rights. As Boeing navigates its production challenges and strives to regain public trust, the resolution of this DPA will be a critical juncture in its ongoing efforts to rebuild its reputation and ensure the safety of its aircraft.