Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, Expedia and its subsidiaries are parties to legal proceedings and claims involving property, personal injury, contract, alleged infringement of third-party intellectual property rights and other claims. The amounts that may be recovered in such matters may be subject to insurance coverage.

Rules of the SEC require the description of material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary, routine litigation incident to the registrant’s business, and advise that proceedings ordinarily need not be described if they primarily involve damages claims for amounts (exclusive of interest and costs) not individually exceeding 10% of the current assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In the judgment of management, none of the pending litigation matters that the Company and its subsidiaries are defending, including those described below, involves or is likely to involve amounts

of that magnitude. The litigation matters described below involve issues or claims that may be of particular interest to our stockholders, regardless of whether any of these matters may be material to our financial position or results of operations based upon the standard set forth in the SEC’s rules.

Litigation Relating to Occupancy and Other Taxes

A number of jurisdictions in the United States have filed lawsuits against online travel companies, including Expedia companies, such as Hotels.com, Expedia, Hotwire, Orbitz and HomeAway, claiming that such travel companies have failed to collect and/or pay taxes (e.g., occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.), as well as related claims such as unjust enrichment, restitution, interest, and penalties. In addition, we may file complaints contesting tax assessments made by states, counties and municipalities seeking to obligate online travel companies, including certain Expedia companies, to collect and remit certain taxes, either retroactively or prospectively, or both. Moreover, certain jurisdictions may require us to pay tax assessments prior to contesting any such assessments. This requirement is commonly referred to as “pay-to-play.” Payment of these amounts is not an admission that we believe we are subject to such taxes and, even when such payments are made, we continue to defend our position vigorously.

Actions Filed by Individual States, Cities and Counties

City of Los Angeles Litigation. On December 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported class action in California state court against a number of online travel companies, including Hotels.com, Expedia, Hotwire and Orbitz. City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No. BC326693 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel occupancy taxes, and sought certification of a statewide class of all California cities and counties that have enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on or after December 30, 1990. The complaint alleged violation of those ordinances, violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion; it also sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate charged to consumers and imposition of a constructive trust, disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties. In the administrative process preceding the litigation, the City of Los Angeles had issued assessments in September 2009 totaling $29.5 million against certain Expedia companies (Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire). On April 18, 2013, the trial court held that the online travel companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to the city of Los Angeles. On January 8, 2014, the court entered final judgment in favor of the online travel companies. On March 21, 2014, the city of Los Angeles filed a notice of appeal. The California Court of Appeals stayed this case pending review and decision by the California Supreme Court in the San Diego litigation. The stay is now lifted and the appeal is proceeding.

City of San Antonio, Texas Litigation. On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Orbitz. See City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., SA06CA0381 (United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint asserted claims for violation of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and declaratory judgment, and sought damages in an unspecified amount, restitution and disgorgement. On October 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that defendant online travel companies "control hotels," and awarding approximately $15 million for historical damages against the Expedia companies. The jury also found that defendants were not liable for conversion or punitive damages. On April 4, 2013, the court entered a final judgment holding the online travel companies liable for hotel occupancy taxes to counties and cities in the statewide class action. The online travel companies filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The cities filed a motion to amend the judgment regarding calculation of penalties. On February 20, 2014, the court denied the online travel companies' motion. On January 22, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the cities' motion regarding penalties. On April 11, 2016, the court entered an amended judgment including approximately $68 million in tax, interest and penalty amounts for the Expedia companies, including Orbitz. The online travel companies filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 6, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross appeal on May 12, 2016. The Fifth Circuit heard argument on the parties’ cross appeals on September 26, 2017. On November 29, 2017, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court and rendering judgment for the defendant online travel companies, finding that the amounts charged by the defendants for their services are not subject to the hotel accommodations taxes at issue. The plaintiff municipalities filed petitions for rehearing and en banc review, which were denied by the Fifth Circuit Court on February 6, 2018. On July 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys’ fees and costs in the trial court; the defendant online travel companies opposed that request. On February 16, 2017, the court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for review and recommendation. On April 10, 2017, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion to stay further proceedings on plaintiffs’ fee request pending resolution of their substantive appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 17, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation as to attorneys' fees. On April 20, 2017, the district court stayed further

proceedings on plaintiff's fee petition pending resolution of the parties' appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 8, 2017, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s fee petition as moot in light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

Nassau County, New York Litigation. On October 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a putative statewide class action in federal court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, and Orbitz. Nassau County, New York, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York). The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to pay hotel accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances to certain New York cities, counties and local governments in New York. The complaint asserted claims for violations of those ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition of a constructive trust, and sought unspecified damages. The county subsequently dismissed its case on May 13, 2011 on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and refiled in state court. County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (In the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the refiled state court case. On June 13, 2012, the court denied the online travel companies' motion to dismiss. On November 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On April 11, 2013, the court granted plaintiff s motion for class certification. The online travel company defendants appealed both the court's certification order and its prior order denying their motion to dismiss. On September 10, 2014, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order granting the plaintiff s motion for class certification. In a separate opinion, the Appellate Division also affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's denial of the online travel companies' motion to dismiss. On September 11, 2015, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On September 25, 2015, Erie County, Orange County, Rensselaer County and Saratoga County, New York (the “first group of intervenors”) filed a motion seeking leave to intervene as plaintiffs in the lawsuit; the defendant online travel companies opposed the motion. On February 23, 2016, the court granted the counties' motion to intervene. The defendants filed their notice of appeal from the February 23, 2016 Order on April 26, 2016. On July 20, 2016, the court entered a stipulated order permitting the addition of another group of taxing jurisdictions - the Counties of Chautauqua, Oswego, Steuben, Westchester, and the City of Saratoga Springs (the “second group of intervenors”) - as Intervenor-Plaintiffs in the lawsuit and agreeing that these Intervenor-Plaintiffs will be bound by the disposition of the defendants' appeal from the Supreme Court's February 23, 2016 Order granting intervention. On December 2, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff Nassau County’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the enabling statute for plaintiff’s tax ordinance did not impose a tax on defendants’ fees. The court further invited defendants to file a successive motion for summary judgment against the first group of intervenors on similar grounds. The court also vacated its prior order granting the second group of intervenors permission to intervene. On December 23, 2016, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment against the first group of intervenors. On March 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order which would permit the second group of intervenors to re-enter the case and be subject to the pending motion for summary judgment against the first group of intervenors. On March 22, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the first and second group of intervenors. Nassau County and the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have appealed the court’s dismissal of their claims. That appeal remains pending.

City and County of San Francisco, California Litigation. On May 13, 2008, San Francisco instituted an audit of a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz, for hotel occupancy taxes claimed to be due from 2000 through the third quarter of 2007. During an administrative hearing process, the hearing examiner upheld the tax assessments. Thereafter, the online travel companies proceeded to the California superior court to vacate the decision of the hearing examiner and for a declaratory judgment that the online travel companies are not subject to San Francisco's hotel occupancy tax. Expedia, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, ET. al.; Hotels.com, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, ET. al.; Hotwire, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, ET. al., (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco). San Francisco also filed a lawsuit against hotels in the city for the recovery of hotel occupancy taxes on the online travel companies' services. The hotel suit was consolidated with the case relating to the online travel companies. On June 19, 2009, the court granted the city's demurrer on the "pay first" issue relating to pay-to-play provisions. Expedia’s and Hotwire's appeal of the "pay first" decision was denied, as was Hotels.com's appeal. The total assessed amount paid by the Expedia companies was approximately $48 million. On February 6, 2013, the court held that the online travel companies are not liable to remit hotel occupancy taxes to San Francisco. On October 10, 2013, the court entered judgment in favor of the online travel companies. On December 9, 2013, San Francisco filed a notice of appeal. San Francisco also has issued additional tax assessments against the Expedia companies in the amount of $22 million for the time period from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the fourth quarter of 2011. These subsequent tax assessments are pending before the court, and on August 24, 2013, the court held that these subsequent assessments against the online travel companies as well as the lawsuit against the hotels should be stayed pending the appeal of San Francisco's first assessment. On January 21, 2014, the city notified the Expedia companies that despite proceeding in court on its assessments that it now intended to proceed against the Expedia companies in the administrative process to recover the assessment amount of $22 million. On May 14, 2014, the court heard oral argument on the Expedia companies' contest of the prepayment requirement for the additional assessments and held that the Expedia companies were required to prepay in order to litigate the legality of the assessments. On May 26, 2014, the Expedia companies paid $25.5 million under protest in order to contest the additional

assessments. In addition, Orbitz in total has paid $4.6 million to the city of San Francisco in prepayment of taxes to contest these assessments issued against it by the city. The California Court of Appeals stayed this case pending review and decision by the California Supreme Court in the San Diego litigation. The stay is now lifted and the appeal is proceeding.

Pine Bluff, Arkansas Litigation. On September 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County filed a class action against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz. Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et al. CV-2009- 946-5 (In the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas). The complaint alleged that defendants have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted on February 19, 2013. Defendants appealed the class certification decision, and on October 10, 2013 the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision. On October 10, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Defendants opposed that motion and filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment on November 22, 2017. On January 31, 2018, the court heard argument on the parties’ cross motions. On February 1, 2018, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of tax liability.

Town of Breckenridge, Colorado Litigation. On July 25, 2011, the Town of Breckenridge, Colorado brought suit on behalf of itself and other home rule municipalities against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company, LLC, Case No. 2011CV420 (District Court, Summit County, Colorado). The complaint included claims for declaratory judgment, violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment. The online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part the online travel companies' motion to dismiss. On March 26, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and, on April 20, 2016, the court granted the online travel companies' motion for summary judgment, and denied the town's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Breckenridge Accommodations Tax does not apply to the online travel companies or the amounts they charge for their services. On June 8, 2016, the Town of Breckenridge filed a notice of appeal from the court's order on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, as well as the court's prior rulings denying class certification and dismissing claims for state sales tax. On June 8, 2016, the Town of Breckenridge filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, as well as the trial court’s prior rulings denying class certification and dismissing claims for state sales tax. On September 8, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the Town of Breckenridge’s appeal without prejudice for lack of a final appealable judgment on the ground that the Town had failed to demonstrate that the trial court had disposed of claims against two non-online travel company defendants. On September 22, 2016, the trial court granted the Town’s motion to dismiss one of the non-online travel company defendants and entered final judgment for all other remaining defendants. On November 7, 2016, the Town again filed notice of appeal. The Colorado Court of Appeals heard argument on the Town’s appeal on January 11, 2018 and on January 25, 2018 affirmed the trial court’s decision on all grounds, finding that the defendant online travel companies are not liable for accommodations taxes, that the Town’s sales tax claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that class certification was properly denied.

State of Mississippi Litigation. On December 29, 2011, the State of Mississippi brought suit against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz. State of Mississippi v. Priceline.com, et al., Case No. G-2011-002211 (Chancery Court, Hinds County, Mississippi). The complaint included claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, violations of state sales tax statute and local ordinances, violation of Consumer Protection Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, money had and received and joint venture liability. On March 23, 2012, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2012, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Village of Bedford Park, Illinois Litigation. On April 5, 2013, a group of Illinois municipalities (City of Warrenville, Village of Bedford Park, City of Oakbrook Terrace, Village of Oak Lawn, Village of Orland Hills, City of Rockford and Village of Willowbrook) filed a putative class action in Illinois federal court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz. City of Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02586 (USDC, D. Ill., Eastern Division). The complaint sought certification of a class of all Illinois municipalities (broken into four alleged subclasses) that have enacted and collect a tax on the percentage of the retail rate that each consumer occupant pays for lodging, including service costs, denominated in any manner, including but not limited to occupancy tax, a hotel or motel room tax, a use tax, a privilege tax, a hotel or motel tax, a licensing tax, an accommodations tax, a rental receipts tax, a hotel operator's tax, a hotel operator's occupation tax, or a room rental, lease or letting tax. The complaint alleged claims for relief for declaratory judgment, violations of municipal ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, damages and punitive damages. On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff municipalities voluntarily dismissed their federal court lawsuit and filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in

Illinois state court. City of Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division). The online travel companies removed the case to federal district court. On September 13, 2013, the online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims. On March 13, 2014, the court granted the defendant online travel companies' motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' common law claims. On October 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied without prejudice on January 6, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which the court denied on September 28, 2015. The case proceeded only on the claims brought by the individual plaintiff municipalities named in the suit. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 29, 2016, the defendant online travel companies filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The Expedia and Orbitz defendants reached a settlement with one of the plaintiff municipalities -the city of Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois and on March 4, 2016, those parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of the city's claims. On June 20, 2016, the court granted the defendant online travel companies' motion for summary judgment as to 12 of the 13 plaintiff municipalities, finding no liability for occupancy taxes in those jurisdictions. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denied the defendants' motion, as to the Village of Lombard. On October 19, 2016, the trial court entered a stipulated judgment on plaintiff Village of Lombard’s claims. The parties filed cross notices of appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in November 2016. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument on the cross appeals on October 23, 2017. On November 22, 2017, the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ appeal, affirming the district court’s decision finding no liability for occupancy taxes in 12 of the 13 plaintiff municipalities, and granted the defendants’ appeal, reversing the district court’s finding of liability for occupancy taxes in the Village of Lombard.

State of New Hampshire Litigation. On October 16, 2013, the State of New Hampshire filed a lawsuit against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz and Egencia. State of New Hampshire v. Priceline.com, et al., Case No. 217-2013-CV-00613 (Merrimack Superior Court, New Hampshire). The complaint alleged claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, violation of state meals and room tax law, violation of Consumer Protection Act, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, conversion, unjust enrichment, assumpsit for money had and received, civil conspiracy, and constructive trust. On December 23, 2013, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part on June 30, 2014. On February 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint. On May 5, 2015, the court issued an order denying the motion to amend except as to "housekeeping changes." On May 27, 2015, plaintiff filed its amended complaint, which the Expedia defendants answered on June 26, 2015. On December 21, 2015, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on the parties' motions on May 5, 2016. At the request of the Court, the Parties subsequently embarked on a process designed to explore the possibility of agreement upon a Statement of Facts and, if there can be an agreement, to prepare an Agreed Statement of Facts for submission to the Court on or before August 1, 2016. The court indicated that if the parties were unable to agree, it would deny all pending motions and set the case for trial. The parties were unable to agree on an Agreed Statement of Facts for submission to the Court by August 1, 2016. On August 1, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for leave of court to submit a renewed motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ consumer protection act claims. On October 3, 2016, the court denied the motion. The case went to trial from May 1 to May 12, 2017. On October 18, 2017, the trial court issued its post-trial order finding that the defendant online travel companies are not subject to the New Hampshire meals and room tax and that their business practices do not violate the state consumer protection act. On November 17, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. That appeal remains pending.

Arizona Cities Litigation. Tax assessments were issued in 2013 by 12 Arizona cities (Apache Junction, Chandler, Flagstaff, Glendale, Mesa, Nogales, Peoria, Phoenix, Prescott, Scottsdale, Tempe and Tucson) against a group of online travel companies including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz. The OTCs petitioned for redetermination of the assessments. On May 28, 2014, the Municipal Tax Hearing Officer granted the online travel companies' protests to the assessments and ordered the cities to abate the assessments. On August 26, 2014, the cities appealed the Hearing Officer's decision by filing complaints and notices of appeal against the online travel companies in Arizona Tax Court. (See, City of Phoenix, et al. v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. TX2014-00471). On August 31, 2015, the cities filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 30, 2015, the online travel companies filed a response to the cities' motion and their own cross motion for summary judgment. On April 20, 2016, the Arizona Tax Court granted the plaintiff cities' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part; the court also denied the defendant online travel companies' motion for summary judgment. On June 6, 2016, the Arizona Tax Court entered judgment. On June 21, 2016, the plaintiff cities filed a motion to amend or alter that judgment on the grounds that the court's ruling that the online travel companies do not owe past taxes based upon prior administrative guidance should be reversed. The defendant online travel companies opposed the motion. On October 17, 2016, the court denied the motion. The plaintiffs and the defendants each filed a notice of appeal. Argument on the appeals is scheduled for February 15, 2018.

Village of Matteson, Illinois Litigation. On December 3, 2015, the Villages of Matteson, Bloomington and Oakbrook, Illinois filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com,

Hotwire, Egencia and Orbitz. Village of Matteson, et al. v. Expedia, Inc. (WA), et al., Case No. 2015CHI7598 (Cook County Chancery Court, State of Illinois). The complaint alleged claims for declaratory judgment, violation of municipal tax ordinances, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty requiring an accounting, damages and punitive damages. On April 4, 2016, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' common law claims. On July 29, 2016, the court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ common law claims.

State of Louisiana/City of New Orleans Litigation. On August 24, 2016, the State of Louisiana Department of Revenue and the City of New Orleans filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz and Egencia. See Kimberly L. Robinson, Secretary of the Department of Revenue for the State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans Department of Finance v. Priceline.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 650894 (19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana). The complaint alleged claims for declaratory judgment, violation of state and city tax laws, unfair trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and imposition of a constructive trust. On November 30, 2016, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ common law and unfair trade practices claims. On March 6, 2017, the court denied the motion. On April 5, 2017, Defendants filed an application for supervisory writ to the Louisiana Court of Appeals seeking to reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion. On July 24, 2017, the Louisiana Court of Appeals denied the application. On August 10, 2017, defendants filed an application for supervisory writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking to reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion. On November 6, 2017, the court denied the writ application.

In addition, HomeAway is a party in the following proceedings:

Palm Beach, Florida Litigation. On January 13, 2014, Palm Beach County, Florida filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against HomeAway and other vacation rental listing businesses seeking tourist development taxes imposed by Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County v. AirBnb, Inc., et al., Case No. 502014CA000428XXXXMBAO (15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida). On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On September 16, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 12, 2014, the court denied the motion. On December 22, 2015, plaintiff filed its second amended complaint. On July 20, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On November 5, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion. The court has set the matter on the trial calendar that begins on May 28, 2018.

Portland, Oregon Litigation. On October 21, 2015, the City of Portland, Oregon filed a lawsuit in federal district court against HomeAway. City of Portland, Oregon v. Homeaway.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01984-MO (D. Or.). The complaint alleges claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, taxes and fines for alleged violations of the Portland Transient Lodgings Tax ordinance, including alleged failures to register, collect and remit tax and display certain information in advertisements and websites. On November 13, 2015, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court heard oral argument on the motion on May 17, 2016. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, some with prejudice and some without. On July 11, 2016, the City of Portland filed an amended complaint. HomeAway responded by filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 5, 2016. The City of Portland opposed the motion. The court heard argument on the motion on December 16, 2016 and, on March 10, 2017, granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. The City of Portland amended its ordinance on short-term rentals, which took effect on January 20, 2017. On January 19, 2017, HomeAway filed two lawsuits challenging the amended ordinance. The first was filed in federal district court and sought a declaration that certain of the amendments violated the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the dormant commerce clause, and the Stored Communications Act. HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Portland, Case No. 3:17-cv-00091 (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon). HomeAway also sought to enjoin enforcement of the amended ordinance. In response to the lawsuit, the city agreed to stay enforcement of the ordinance against HomeAway pending the court’s decision on HomeAway’s preliminary injunction motion. The hearing on that motion took place on March 20, 2017. The court issued a ruling from the bench granting the motion in part, denying it in part based on the city’s representation as to how it would enforce a portion of its ordinance, and ordering supplemental briefing on an additional issue involving the scope of an audit provision. On May 11, 2017, the court ruled that the audit provision could not be used to obtain information protected by the Stored Communications Act. The court has set the case for trial on April 24, 2018. The second lawsuit was filed in state court and sought an injunction and declaration that the amended ordinance improperly seeks to impose transient lodging taxes on HomeAway even though the imposition of such taxes is not authorized by the City Charter or the state transient lodging statute applicable to localities. HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Portland, MCCC No. 17cv01894 (Multnomah County Circuit Court). The state court has set the case for trial on April 16, 2018.

Clackamas County, Oregon Litigation. On September 7, 2017, Clackamas County, Oregon filed a lawsuit in state circuit court against HomeAway, Expedia, Inc. and other vacation rental listing companies. Clackamas County v. Homeaway.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-CV-38408 (Clackamas County Circuit Court). The complaint alleges the defendants failed to register

with, and remit taxes to, the county as persons “engaging…in business as an…intermediary of transient lodging” as allegedly required by a new ordinance that became effective June 15, 2017. The complaint purports to seek enforcement of the ordinance and injunctive relief. On October 12, 2017, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. On November 16, 2017, HomeAway, Expedia and Airbnb filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 7, 2017, the County filed a motion to strike defendants’ challenge to the legality of the amended tax ordinance. These motions were assigned to a magistrate judge, who heard argument on the motions on January 3, 2018. The parties await issuance of the magistrate’s report and recommendation to the district court judge.

Notices of Audit or Tax Assessments

At various times, the Company has also received notices of audit, or tax assessments from over 15 states or counties and over 80 municipalities concerning its possible obligations with respect to state and local occupancy or other taxes.

Actions Filed by Expedia

Hawaii Tax Court Litigation (General Excise Tax). During 2013, the Expedia companies were required to “pay-to-play” and paid a total of $171 million in advance of litigation relating to general excise taxes for merchant model hotel reservations in the State of Hawaii. In September 2015, following a ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the State of Hawaii refunded the Expedia companies $132 million of the original “pay-to-play” amount. Orbitz also received a similar refund of $22 million from the State of Hawaii in September 2015. The amount paid, net of refunds, by the Expedia companies and Orbitz to the State of Hawaii in satisfaction of past general excise taxes on their services for merchant model hotel reservations was $44 million. The parties reached a settlement relating to Orbitz merchant model hotel tax liabilities, and on October 5, 2016, the Expedia companies paid the State of Hawaii for the tax years 2012 through 2015. The Expedia companies and Orbitz have now resolved all assessments by the State of Hawaii for merchant model hotel taxes through 2015.

The Department of Taxation also issued final assessments for general excise taxes against the Expedia companies, including Orbitz, dated December 23, 2015 for the time period 2000 to 2014 for hotel and car rental revenue for “agency model” transactions. Those assessments are currently under review in the Hawaii tax courts. The Hawaii tax court has scheduled trial on the agency hotel and car rental matters for February 4, 2019. On December 29, 2017, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The Department of Taxation has asked the tax court to stay further proceedings in the agency hotel and car rental case pending a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the merchant model car rental case addressed below. The defendants have opposed the request. On February 5, 2018, the tax court granted the motion to stay.

Final assessments by the Hawaii Department of Taxation for general exercise taxes against the Expedia companies, including Orbitz, relating to merchant car rental transactions during the years 2000 to 2014 are also under review in the Hawaii tax courts. With respect to merchant model car rental transactions at issue for the tax years 2000 through 2013, the Hawaii tax court held on August 5, 2016 that general excise tax is due on the online travel companies’ services to facilitate car rentals. The court further ruled that for merchant model car rentals in Hawaii, the online travel companies are required to pay general excise tax on the total amount paid by consumers, with no credit for tax amounts already remitted by car rental companies to the State of Hawaii for tax years 2000 through 2013, thus resulting in a double tax on the amount paid by consumers to car rental companies for the rental of the vehicle. The court, however, ruled that when car rentals are paid for as part of a vacation package, tax is only due once on the amount paid by consumers to the car rental company for the rental of the vehicle. In addition, the court ruled that the online travel companies are required to pay interest and certain penalties on the amounts due. On April 25, 2017, the court entered a stipulated order and final judgment. On May 15, 2017, the Expedia companies paid under protest the full amount claimed due, or approximately $16.7 million, as a condition of appeal. The parties filed notices of cross-appeal from the order. The appeals have been transferred to the Hawaii Supreme Court and oral argument on the merchant car appeals is scheduled for April 5, 2018. The Hawaii tax court’s decision did not resolve “merchant model” car rental transactions for the tax year 2014, which also remain under review.

Non-Tax Litigation and Other Legal Proceedings

Putative Class Action Litigation

Buckeye Tree Lodge Lawsuit. On August 17, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in federal district court in the Northern District of California against Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Expedia Australia Investments Pty Ltd. and Trivago relating to alleged false advertising. Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-04721-SK (U.S. District Court, Norther District of California). Plaintiff has not effected service of process as to trivago. The putative class is comprised of hotels and other providers of overnight accommodations whose names appeared on the Expedia defendants’ websites with whom the Expedia defendants did not have a booking agreement during the relevant time period. The complaint asserts claims against the Expedia defendants for violations of the Lanham Act, the California Business & Professions Code, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, unjust enrichment and

restitution. On January 12, 2017, the court granted the Expedia defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage without prejudice. On March 7, 2017, a related putative class action was filed in the same court, 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-01186-JSC, asserting similar Lanham Act claims, and claims for Unfair Competition, and Unjust Enrichment and Restitution. The court determined that the cases were related and assigned them to the same judge. Expedia accepted service of the Complaint on March 13, 2017. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Israeli Putative Class Action Lawsuit (Silis). In or around September 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel against Hotels.com. Silis v. Hotels.com, (Case No. 23241-09-16CA). The plaintiff generally alleges that Hotels.com violated Israeli consumer protection laws in various ways by failing to calculate and display VAT charges in pricing displays shown to Israeli consumers. On March 15, 2017, Hotels.com filed an application with the District Court challenging service. On June 22, 2017, the court registrar rejected Hotels.com’s application. Hotels.com appealed this decision. On November 7, 2017, the court denied the appeal. Hotels.com has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel. The Supreme Court has ordered the parties to send the pleadings to the General Attorney of the Israeli Government and has asked the General Attorney to provide a written opinion with respect to the subjects addressed in Hotels.com’s appeal.

Israeli Putative Class Action Lawsuit (Ze’ev). In or around January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court in Lod, Israel against a number of online travel companies including Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com. Ze’ev v. Expedia, Inc., et al (Case No. CA 6771-01-18). The plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants violated Israeli consumer laws by limiting hotel price competition. The Expedia defendants have not yet been served.

Cases against HomeAway.com, Inc. On March 15, 2016, a putative class action suit was filed in federal district court in Texas against HomeAway.com, Inc. related to its recent implementation of a service fee. Arnold v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Case No. l-16-cv-00374 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway’s websites for rent. The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. On April 15, 2016, another putative class action suit was filed against HomeAway, also related to the implementation of a service fee. Seim v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16- cv-00479 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway’s websites. The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and other state consumer protection statutes. HomeAway moved to compel arbitration and dismissal in both of these cases on July 11, 2016; a hearing on both motions to compel took place on August 24, 2016. On January 10, 2017, the court denied HomeAway’s motion in Arnold. On January 31, 2017, HomeAway filed a notice of appeal. On March 10, 2017, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in Arnold. On August 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his report and recommendation to the court, recommending the court grant HomeAway's motion to dismiss the complaint in part, and deny the motion in part. On September 25, 2017, the court adopted the magistrate’s report in Arnold. On October 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and/or to strike the class allegations. On January 10, 2018, the district court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge. On January 18, 2017, the court granted HomeAway’s motion in Seim and entered final judgment dismissing the case. On February 2, 2017, Seim filed a notice of appeal. On December 7, 2017, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument in the Arnold and Seim matters on the parties’ appeals from the trial court’s decisions on HomeAway’s motions to compel arbitration. The parties await a ruling.

On June 23, 2016, another putative class action was filed against HomeAway.com, Inc., also related to the implementation of a service fee. Brickman v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00733 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). This putative class is comprised of homeowners from nine different states that list their properties on HomeAway's websites. The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, restitution, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. On October 26, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dismissing certain named Plaintiffs and adding two new Plaintiffs. On December 6, 2016, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. On August 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued his report and recommendation to the court, recommending the court grant HomeAway's motion to dismiss the complaint in part, and deny the motion in part. On August 25, 2017, the district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by September 8, 2017. On September 7, 2017, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, HomeAway filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and/or to strike the class allegations. On January 10, 2018, the district court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge. On November 7, 2016, another putative class action was filed against HomeAway.com, Inc., also related to the implementation of a service fee. May v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01211 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. It also names Expedia as a defendant. HomeAway and

Expedia moved to compel arbitration and dismissal in this case on May 1, 2017. On July 6, 2017, the court held a hearing on the motion. On July 10, 2017, the court entered an order directing the parties to advise it when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issues decisions in the Arnold and Seim appeals.

Other Legal Proceedings

Santa Monica, California Litigation. On September 2, 2016, HomeAway filed a lawsuit against the City of Santa Monica requesting a declaration that certain sections of a Santa Monica ordinance violate the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the Storage Communications Act, and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, Case Nos. 2:16-cv-6645-ODW-AFM; 2:16-cv-06641-ODW-AFM (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). On the same day, HomeAway filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance. In response, the city requested a stay of proceedings to prepare and consider amendments to the Ordinance to address the legal challenges raised by Plaintiffs’ actions. The court granted the city's motion to stay the case until the effective date of any new Santa Monica ordinance. The city passed an amended ordinance that took effect February 23, 2017, although enforcement of that ordinance has been stayed by agreement of the parties. HomeAway filed an amended complaint and preliminary injunction motion on December 13, 2017. The motion is scheduled for hearing on February 26, 2018.

Chicago, Illinois Litigation. On May 22, 2017, HomeAway filed a lawsuit against the City of Chicago requesting a declaration that certain sections of the city’s ordinance violate the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the Storage Communications Act, and the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 1:17-cv-03784 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois). Enforcement of the ordinance has been stayed by agreement of the parties.

Ryanair Lawsuit (Ireland). On or around February 15, 2017, Ryanair D.A.C. filed a lawsuit against Expedia, Inc. in the Irish High Court. The case involves claims over alleged bookings of Ryanair flight reservations with data that has been scraped from Ryanair’s website. Ryanair D.A.C. v. Expedia, Inc., (Case No. 2017/11 IA).

Ryanair Lawsuit (United States). On November 29, 2017, Ryanair D.A.C. filed a lawsuit against Expedia, Inc. in federal court in Washington alleging violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Ryanair DAC v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01789 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington). The case involves claims relating to alleged bookings of Ryanair flight reservations with data that has been scraped from Ryanair’s website. On February 5, 2018, Expedia filed a motion to dismiss.

IBM Lawsuit. On December 29, 2017, IBM filed a complaint against Expedia, Inc. (DE), Expedia, Inc. (WA), Travelscape, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz, and HomeAway in federal court in Delaware. International Business Machines Corporation v. Expedia, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01875-LPS-CJB (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). The Complaint alleges that the defendants infringe four patents held by IBM.

Derivative Litigation

In Re Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 10711-VCP (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). On April 8, 2015, an amended class action complaint was brought against Expedia, Inc. and Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. relating to the merger agreement signed by the parties. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the Orbitz Board of Directors and claims against Expedia for aiding and abetting in the Orbitz directors’ breach of their duties. Plaintiffs specifically claim that the Orbitz Board breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to an inadequate price for the transaction and unreasonable deal protection devices. On May 20, 2015, Orbitz, its Board of Directors, and the plaintiffs entered into an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit. On August 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal and reserved their rights to seek an award of attorneys’ fees.

Competition and Consumer Matters

Over the last several years, the online travel industry has become the subject of investigations by various national competition authorities ("NCAs"), particularly in Europe. Expedia is or has been involved in investigations predominately related to whether certain parity clauses in contracts between Expedia entities and accommodation providers, sometimes also referred to as "most favored nation" or "MFN" provisions, are anti-competitive.

In Europe, investigations or inquiries into contractual parity provisions between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia, were initiated in 2012, 2013 and 2014 by NCAs in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. While the ultimate outcome of some of these investigations or inquiries remains uncertain, and Expedia’s circumstances are distinguishable from other online travel companies subject to similar investigations and inquiries, we note in this context that on April 21, 2015, the French, Italian and Swedish NCAs, working in close cooperation with the European Commission, announced that they had accepted formal commitments offered by Booking.com to resolve and close the investigations against Booking.com in France, Italy and Sweden

by Booking.com removing and/or modifying certain rate, conditions and availability parity provisions in its contracts with accommodation providers in France, Italy and Sweden as of July 1, 2015, among other commitments. Booking.com voluntarily extended the geographic scope of these commitments to accommodation providers throughout Europe as of the same date.

With effect from August 1, 2015, Expedia waived certain rate, conditions and availability parity clauses in its agreements with its European hotel partners for a period of five years. While Expedia maintains that its parity clauses have always been lawful and in compliance with competition law, these waivers were nevertheless implemented as a positive step towards facilitating the closure of the open investigations into such clauses on a harmonized pan-European basis. Following the implementation of Expedia's waivers, nearly all NCAs in Europe have announced either the closure of their investigation or inquiries involving Expedia or a decision not to open an investigation or inquiry involving Expedia. Below are descriptions of additional rate parity-related matters of note in Europe.

The German Federal Cartel Office ("FCO") has required another online travel company, Hotel Reservation Service ("HRS"), to remove certain clauses from its contracts with hotels. HRS’ appeal of this decision was rejected by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf on January 9, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the FCO announced that it had also required Booking.com by way of an infringement decision to remove certain clauses from its contracts with German hotels. Booking.com has appealed the decision and the appeal was heard by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf on February 8, 2017. Those proceedings remain ongoing.

The Italian competition authority's case closure decision against Booking.com and Expedia has subsequently been appealed by two Italian hotel trade associations, i.e. Federalberghi and AICA. These appeals remain at an early stage and no hearing date has been fixed.

On November 6, 2015, the Swiss competition authority announced that it had issued a final decision finding certain parity terms existing in previous versions of agreements between Swiss hotels and each of Expedia, Booking.com and HRS to be prohibited under Swiss law. The decision explicitly notes that Expedia's current contract terms with Swiss hotels are not subject to this prohibition. The Swiss competition authority imposed no fines or other sanctions against Expedia and did not find an abuse of a dominant market position by Expedia. The FCO’s case against Expedia’s contractual parity provisions with accommodation providers in Germany remains open but is still at a preliminary stage with no formal allegations of wrong-doing having been communicated to Expedia to date.

The Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud (the “DGCCRF”), a directorate of the French Ministry of Economy and Finance with authority over unfair trading practices, brought a lawsuit in France against Expedia entities objecting to certain parity clauses in contracts between Expedia entities and French hotels. In May 2015, the French court ruled that certain of the parity provisions in certain contracts that were the subject of the lawsuit were not in compliance with French commercial law, but imposed no fine and no injunction. The DGCCRF appealed the decision and, on June 21, 2017, the Paris Court of Appeal published a judgment overturning the decision. The court annulled parity clauses contained in the agreements at issue, ordered Expedia to amend its contracts, and imposed a fine. Expedia has appealed the decision. The appeal will not stay payment of the fine.

Hotelverband Deutschland (“IHA”) e.V. (a German hotel association) brought proceedings before the Cologne regional court against Expedia, Inc., Expedia.com GmbH and Expedia Lodging Partner Services Sàrl. IHA applied for a ‘cease and desist’ order against these companies in relation to the enforcement of certain rate and availability parity clauses contained in contracts with hotels in Germany. On or around February 16, 2017, the court dismissed IHA’s action and declared the claimant liable for the Expedia defendants’ statutory costs. IHA appealed the decision and, on December 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals rejected IHA’s appeal. The Court of Appeals expressly confirmed that Expedia’s MFNs are in compliance both with European and German competition law. While IHA had indicated an intention to appeal the decision to the Federal Supreme Court, it has not lodged an appeal within the applicable deadline, with the consequence that the Court of Appeals judgment has now become final.

A working group of 10 European NCAs (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and the European Commission has been established by the European Competition Network (“ECN”) at the end of 2015 to monitor the functioning of the online hotel booking sector, following amendments made by a number of online travel companies (including Booking.com and Expedia) in relation to certain parity provisions in their contracts with hotels. The working group issued questionnaires to online travel agencies including Expedia, metasearch sites and hotels in 2016. The underlying results of the ECN monitoring exercise were published on April 6, 2017.

Legislative bodies in France (July 2015), Austria (December 2016) and Italy (August 2017) have also adopted new domestic anti-parity clause legislation. Expedia believes each of these pieces of legislation violates both EU and national legal principles and therefore, Expedia has challenged these laws at the European Commission.

A motion requesting the Swiss government to take action on narrow price parity has been adopted in the Swiss parliament. Moreover, in Belgium, the government is also reviewing narrow parity provisions. The Company is unable to

predict whether these proposals in their current form or in another form will ultimately be adopted and, if so, when this might be the case. It is not yet clear how any adopted domestic anti-parity clause legislations and/or any possible future legislation in this area may affect Expedia’s business.

Outside of Europe, a number of NCAs have also opened investigations or inquired about contractual parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies in their respective territories, including Expedia. A Brazilian hotel sector association -- Forum de Operadores Hoteleiros do Brasil -- filed a complaint with the Brazilian Administrative Council for Economic Defence (“CADE”) against a number of online travel companies, including Booking.com, Decolar.com and Expedia, on July 27, 2016 with respect to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies. On September 13, 2016, Expedia submitted its response to the complaint to CADE. In late 2016, Expedia resolved the concerns of the Australia and New Zealand NCAs based on implementation of the waivers substantially similar to those provided to accommodation providers in Europe (on September 1, 2016 in Australia and on October 28, 2016 in New Zealand). More recently, however, the Australian NCA indicated that it has reopened its investigation. Expedia is in ongoing discussions with a limited number of NCAs in other countries in relation to its contracts with hotels. Expedia is currently unable to predict the impact the implementation of the waivers both in Europe and elsewhere will have on Expedia's business, on investigations or inquiries by NCAs in other countries, or on industry practice more generally.

In addition, regulatory authorities in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere have recently initiated market studies, inquiries and investigations into online marketplaces and how information is presented to consumers using those marketplaces, investigating practices such as search results rankings and algorithms, discount claims, disclosure of charges, and availability and similar messaging. We are unable to predict the implications of these market studies, inquiries and investigations on Expedia’s business.