He literally mentions force majeure as the reason they would use, but dismisses it because at the time they hadn't cited a reason for it.
The quote is from yesterday.
They never cited a reason for it. They admitted fault, settled .
And those are not force majuere reasons. That wouldn't hold up in court.
Force majeure is generally intended to include occurrences beyond the reasonable control of a party, and therefore would not cover:
Any result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which has a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations.
You're better off sticking with "He was disorderly" or "He endangered the staff/flight"
"We fucked up and let you board and now need to throw 4 staffers on" is negligence
They define what they are considering force majeure in their contract and list as reasons weather, government regulation, and staffing needs.
And of course they settled, they're a business stuck in a PR nightmare, there is absolutely no reason for UA to take responsibility for the actions of the airport police other than to make this go away as quickly as possible. ---