In a decision that has reverberated across the aviation industry and among families of crash victims, a U.S. federal judge in Texas has dismissed criminal charges against Boeing related to the two catastrophic 737 MAX crashes, allowing the aerospace giant to avoid prosecution in exchange for a $1.1 billion settlement. The ruling, issued on November 6, 2025, comes after years of legal wrangling, public scrutiny, and an outpouring of grief from those who lost loved ones in the tragedies.
The crashes in question—Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia in October 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in March 2019—occurred within five months of each other, claiming the lives of 346 people. Both disasters were linked to a malfunction in the aircraft’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a flight control software that repeatedly forced the planes’ noses down based on faulty sensor data, according to the Associated Press and Reuters. The aftermath saw the global grounding of the 737 MAX fleet for 20 months, costing Boeing more than $20 billion and severely tarnishing its reputation.
The settlement, approved by Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas, includes a $243.6 million fine, an additional $444.5 million to be distributed evenly among the families of crash victims, and more than $455 million earmarked for strengthening Boeing’s compliance, safety, and quality programs. The total, as outlined by the Justice Department and reported by Seeking Alpha, reaches $1.1 billion and is intended to resolve criminal conspiracy charges that Boeing knowingly defrauded the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) during the certification of the MAX aircraft.
Yet, the judge’s approval came with clear reservations. In his remarks, Judge O’Connor stated, “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history.” He further expressed that the government’s deal with Boeing “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public.” Despite his personal misgivings, he acknowledged that he did not have the authority to reject the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the case, a point echoed by both Boeing and federal prosecutors who argued that the court was bound by the terms of the agreement.
The settlement not only avoids a criminal trial—previously scheduled for June 2025 in Fort Worth—but also allows Boeing to select its own compliance consultant rather than being subjected to oversight by an independent monitor, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from some quarters. During a three-hour hearing in September, Judge O’Connor listened to anguished objections from relatives of crash victims, many of whom argued that the agreement let Boeing off too easily. “The message sent by this action to companies around the country is, don’t worry about making your products safe for your customers,” said Javier de Luis, a family member of one of the MAX victims, as quoted by attorneys for plaintiffs suing Boeing.
The reactions from the families have been deeply divided. According to court filings and reporting by Digital Journal, nearly 100 families opposed the settlement, while 110 supported or did not oppose it. Some have voiced a desire for closure, with one family member quoted by the Justice Department as saying, “the grief resurfaces every time this case is discussed in court or other forums.” Others remain determined to appeal the decision, seeking what they view as true accountability for the loss of their loved ones.
The legal saga traces back to a January 2021 agreement between Boeing and the Department of Justice, which settled initial fraud charges and required a three-year probation period for the company. However, in May 2024, the DOJ determined Boeing had violated the terms of that agreement due to subsequent safety lapses. By July 2024, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” but a December 2024 settlement codifying the guilty plea was rejected by Judge O’Connor. The final settlement, approved this November, ultimately allowed Boeing to resolve the matter without a guilty plea or a criminal conviction.
Meanwhile, the civil litigation landscape has also been shifting. In Chicago, the first civil trial over the Ethiopian Airlines crash opened on November 5, 2025, focusing on the death of Shikha Garg, a United Nations consultant and newlywed from India. Although Boeing has already accepted responsibility for the crash, the trial’s purpose is to determine compensation for Garg’s family. “Money is an entirely inadequate substitute for the life of Shikha Garg,” said Shanin Specter, the family’s attorney, during opening statements. Moments before the trial began, another family, that of Mercy Ndivo, a 28-year-old mother from Kenya, reached a confidential settlement with Boeing, a scenario that has played out in most of the dozens of wrongful death lawsuits stemming from the crashes. Fewer than a dozen cases remain unresolved, as reported by the Associated Press.
The technical failures that led to the two crashes have been widely documented. In both cases, the MCAS software repeatedly forced the aircraft’s nose downward based on erroneous readings from a single sensor, despite the pilots’ desperate attempts to regain control. The system’s design, and Boeing’s failure to adequately inform regulators and airlines about its operation, became central to the criminal and civil cases. Prosecutors alleged that Boeing deceived government regulators about the MCAS system, a charge that the company ultimately settled without an admission of guilt in criminal court.
Boeing, for its part, has expressed deep regret for the tragedies. “We are deeply sorry for the crashes of a Ethiopian Airlines flight that killed 157, and a Lion Air crash in Indonesia that killed 189,” the company said in a statement. The company has since paid out billions of dollars in compensation through lawsuits, deferred prosecution agreements, and other payments, and has committed to major investments in safety and compliance as part of the settlement.
The implications of the judge’s decision are likely to ripple through the aviation industry and beyond. The outcome highlights the challenges of balancing corporate accountability with the practicalities of legal settlements, especially in cases involving mass casualties and complex technical failures. Some legal experts warn that allowing companies to avoid criminal convictions in exchange for large settlements could set a troubling precedent, potentially undermining efforts to ensure the safety of consumer products and public trust in regulatory oversight.
As the dust settles, families of the victims are left to grapple with the reality that, while Boeing will face significant financial penalties and public scrutiny, the company has avoided a criminal trial. For many, the wounds remain fresh, and the debate over justice and accountability for the 737 MAX tragedies is far from over.
