Originally Posted by
bocastephen
Remember passengers must comply with both crewmember instructions supported by the FARs and rules supported by the airline's policy or operations manual.
So while a FA cannot force you to stand on your head, sing Yankee Doodle Dandy, or change your clothes (unless your clothing violates a written policy or operations manual), or even change your laptop screensaver from a 757 to a cat, since seat poaching is addressed by a UA policy or operations manual entry somewhere, they are within their rights to take action against someone who refuses to move out of a seat for which they are not authorized.
Sarcasm aside, There is a difference between the FAR's particularly when it comes to Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
I think what you are getting at is the difference between what UA sees as a coc action (civil contract dispute which would get you denial of service) vs. a FAA civil or criminal charge.
While the facts in this matter are fuzzy, it seems that the passengers did not return to their assigned seats when likely asked repeatedly. that would fall under crew interference IMO. That would be the civil side unless other things were done (criminal assault, threats, etc.). this is where the facts are fuzzy. this perhaps explains why the pax were not charged by leo's as there may not have been evidence to support criminal charges, perhaps only civil matters.
And if there was/will not be criminal charges filed in the case, was it worth the diversion if only for the pursuit/collection of a civil fine?