Item 3. Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, Expedia Group 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 statutory and common law 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 Group 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, business privilege taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.), as well as related claims such as unjust enrichment, restitution, conversion and violation of consumer protection statutes, and seeking monetary (including tax, interest, and penalties), injunctive and/or declaratory relief. In addition, we may file complaints contesting tax assessments made by states, counties and municipalities seeking to obligate online travel companies, including certain Expedia Group 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

Pine Bluff, Arkansas Litigation. In September 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and Jefferson County filed a putative class action against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz, alleging that defendants failed to collect and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances. In February 2018, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of tax liability. The matter is currently pending in the trial court on damages issues.

State of Mississippi Litigation. In December 2011, the State of Mississippi brought suit against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz, for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, violations of the state sales tax statute and local ordinances, violation of Consumer Protection Act (subsequently dismissed), conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, money had and received and joint venture liability. In October 2018, the trial court granted the State of Mississippi’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, after which the case proceeded to a damages phase in the trial court. In a July 12, 2021 final judgment, the trial court found the defendant online travel companies liable for state and local sales taxes and interest and also held the defendants liable for penalties. An appeal of the final judgment to the Mississippi Supreme Court remains pending.

Arizona Cities Litigation. Tax assessments were issued in 2013 by 12 Arizona cities against a group of online travel companies including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire and Orbitz. The online travel companies protested and petitioned for redetermination of the assessments. On May 28, 2014, the Municipal Tax Hearing Officer granted the online travel companies' protests and ordered the cities to abate the assessments. The cities appealed to the Arizona Tax Court, which granted the cities' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part in April 2016. The matter is currently pending in the Arizona Tax Court on damages issues. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on damages issues in 2020. On December 17,

Table of Contents

2021, the Tax Court granted the parties’ motions in part and denied the parties’ motions in part. On January 3, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider a portion of the December 17, 2021 ruling; that motion remains pending.

State of Louisiana/City of New Orleans Litigation. In August 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. The complaint alleges 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 January 26, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to reconsider the court’s prior denial of their motion for summary judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the recent decision by the Louisiana court of appeals in the Jefferson Parrish litigation. That motion remains pending. Trial in the case is scheduled to begin April 4, 2022.

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Litigation. In January 2019, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana filed a lawsuit in Louisiana state court against a number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Orbitz and Egencia. The complaint alleges claims for declaratory judgment, violation of state and local tax laws, unfair trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and imposition of a constructive trust. In September 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed all remaining claims (certain claims had previously been dismissed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings) by the plaintiff with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed the court’s decision. On December 23, 2021, the court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment, thereby ending the matter.

Clark County, Nevada Litigation. On May 14, 2021, Clark County, Nevada filed a lawsuit in state court against a number of online travel companies, including a number of Expedia Group companies such as Expedia, Hotels.com, Orbitz, Travelscape, and Hotwire. The complaint alleges the defendants failed to comply with state and local transient occupancy tax statutes, as well as claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud and violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs purport to seek compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief and imposition of a constructive trust. The case was removed to federal district court. On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the common law and Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, which remains pending.

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

Broward County, Florida Litigation. In January 2019, Broward County, Florida filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against HomeAway seeking a declaration that HomeAway is obligated to collect and remit tourist development taxes imposed by Broward County and enforcement of a subpoena. The parties reached a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed on November 15, 2021, thereby ending the matter.

Jasper County Development District #1, Texas Litigation. On August 17, 2020, Jasper County Development District # 1 filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against Expedia and HomeAway. The complaint alleges claims for declaratory judgment, damages and an accounting. The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement.

City of Charleston, South Carolina Litigation. On April 9, 2021, nine local governmental entities in South Carolina filed a lawsuit in state circuit court against HomeAway.com, Inc. and many other vacation rental listing companies. The complaint alleges the defendants failed to register with, and remit taxes and business license fees to, the plaintiffs as allegedly required by certain local accommodations tax and business license ordinances. The complaint further alleges claims for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs purport to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, a legal accounting and damages. On May 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding five additional local government entities as plaintiffs. On September 24, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint seeking to add, among other things, two additional local government entities as plaintiffs (which would bring the total number of plaintiffs to 16). That motion remains pending.

Notices of Audit or Tax Assessments

At various times, the Company has also received notices of audit or tax assessments from states, counties, municipalities and other local taxing jurisdictions concerning its possible obligations with respect to state and local taxes (e.g. occupancy taxes, business privilege taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.).

Non-Tax Litigation and Other Legal Proceedings

Putative Class Action Litigation

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. 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. The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification which Hotels.com has opposed.

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. The plaintiff

Table of Contents

generally alleges that the defendants violated Israeli consumer laws by limiting hotel price competition. The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification which defendants have opposed.

Other Legal Proceedings

Helms-Burton Litigation. A number of complaints have been filed by parties alleging violations of Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act. Plaintiffs are currently appealing dismissals of their claims in the Third and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. Other cases remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Stockholder Litigation

In re Expedia Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation. On August 12, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a stipulated motion consolidating three lawsuits that had been filed by Expedia Group shareholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc. (“LEXE”): (1) Teamsters Union Local No. 142 Pension Fund v. Barry Diller, et. al.; (2) Plaut v. Diller, et al.; and (3) Steamfitters local 449 Pension Plan v. Diller et al. These actions purported to assert, among other things, direct and derivative claims against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors, the Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation, and against the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties by, among other things, wrongfully causing the Company to enter into certain agreements with the Company’s Executive Chairman, in connection with the Company’s acquisition of LEXE on July 26, 2019. On September 20, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and its counsel, and ordered the filing of a consolidated amended complaint. On December 11, 2019, a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors of Expedia Group, Inc. (“SLC”) filed a motion to stay the litigation pending completion of the SLC’s investigation into the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to stay and filed a motion for leave to file an amended consolidated complaint. On January 9, 2020, the court granted the SLC’s motion for a stay, ordered the action stayed for six months from the filing date of the motion, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended consolidated complaint. On April 13, 2020, the court granted the SLC’s motion for an extension and extended the stay until September 11, 2020. By letter dated September 10, 2020, the SLC informed the court that it had completed its investigation and sought a further extension of time until October 13, 2020, to finalize its investigative report and to file a motion to dismiss the action. That same day, the court granted the SLC’s motion and extended the stay until October 13, 2020. On October 16, 2020, the court granted the SLC’s motion for a further extension of the stay until October 23, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the SLC filed a motion to dismiss the action along with a report of the SLC’s investigation. A public version of the SLC’s report was filed on October 30, 2020. On December 11, 2020, pursuant to a scheduling order of the court, the SLC filed its opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss. A public version of the SLC’s opening brief was filed on December 18, 2020. On July 28, 2021, the SLC filed a letter informing the court that the parties to the litigation had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the action and requesting a stay of further proceedings while that agreement was formalized. The July 28, 2021 letter was publicly filed on August 4, 2021.

On November 2, 2021, the parties to the litigation and the SLC entered into a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement”) which set forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the litigation, subject to review and approval by the court upon notice to the stockholder class and the current stockholders of the Company. On November 3, 2021, the court entered its Scheduling Order with Respect to Notice of Settlement Hearing (the “Scheduling Order”), which scheduled a hearing on the proposed settlement for January 19, 2022 to determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Company, the class and the current stockholders of the Company, and to consider an application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses by plaintiff’s counsel.

The Scheduling Order also approved the form of Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class and Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear, which was mailed to stockholders and posted to the “Investors/Resources” section of the Company’s corporate website.

Following a hearing held on January 19, 2022, the court entered its Order and Final Judgment (the “Settlement Order”) approving the proposed settlement set forth in the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, dismissing the litigation with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the claims that were or would have been asserted in the litigation against the defendants and related persons. The court also awarded plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in the sum of $6.5 million, thereby ending the matter.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, Mr. Diller, the other defendants, the SLC, and the Company agreed to certain governance and related provisions, which are summarized in NOTE 18 — Related Party Transactions in the notes to the consolidated financial statements, which summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Settlement Order entered January 19, 2022, and the Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement, dated November 2, 2021, filed as Exhibit 99.1 and Exhibit 99.2, respectively, to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Competition and Consumer Matters

Table of Contents

Over the last several years, the online travel industry has become the subject of investigations by various national competition authorities (“NCAs”), particularly in Europe.

Matters Relating to Contractual Provisions with Accommodations Providers

Expedia Group companies are or have been involved in a number of investigations by European NCAs predominately related to whether certain parity clauses in contracts between Expedia Group entities and accommodation providers (sometimes also referred to as “most favored nation” or “MFN” provisions) are anti-competitive.

With effect from August 1, 2015, Expedia Group companies waived certain rate, conditions and availability parity clauses in agreements with European hotel partners. While the Expedia Group companies maintain that their 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 the Expedia Group companies' waivers, nearly all NCAs in Europe announced either the closure of their investigation or inquiries involving Expedia Group companies or a decision not to open an investigation or inquiry involving Expedia Group companies. However, certain related matters remain ongoing, including cases brought by the German Federal Cartel Office and the Italian competition authority, as well as a review by a working group of 10 European NCAs and the European Commission. Legislative bodies in France, Austria, Italy, and Belgium have also adopted domestic anti-parity clause legislation, which we believe in each case violates both EU and national legal principles. In addition, a motion requesting the Swiss government to take action on narrow price parity has been adopted in the Swiss parliament. The Swiss government is now in the process of drafting legislation implementing the motion.

A number of NCAs outside of Europe have also opened investigations or inquired about contractual parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies in their respective territories, including Expedia Group companies. In certain of these jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, South Korea and New Zealand, the concerns were resolved with Expedia Group companies’ waiver of certain rate, conditions and availability parity clauses in agreements with hotel partners in the respective jurisdictions. In other cases, Expedia Group companies are in ongoing discussions with NCAs. For example, in April 2019, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (“JFTC”) launched an investigation into certain practices of a number of online travel companies, including Expedia Group companies. Expedia Group is cooperating with the JFTC.

Matters Relating to Online Marketplaces

Regulatory authorities in Europe (including the UK Competition and Markets Authority, or “CMA”), Australia, and elsewhere have also initiated legal proceedings and/or undertaken market studies, inquiries or investigations relating to online marketplaces and how information is presented to consumers using those marketplaces, including practices such as search results rankings and algorithms, discount claims, disclosure of charges, and availability and similar messaging. In response, we agreed to offer certain voluntary undertakings with respect to the presentation of information on certain of our UK and European Union consumer-facing websites in order to address the regulatory authorities’ concerns.

On August 23, 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or "ACCC", instituted proceedings in the Australian Federal Court against trivago. The ACCC alleged breaches of Australian Consumer Law, or "ACL," relating to trivago’s advertisements in Australia concerning the hotel prices available on trivago’s Australian site, trivago’s strike-through pricing practice and other aspects of the way offers for accommodation were displayed on trivago's Australian website. The matter went to trial in September 2019 and, on January 20, 2020, the Australian Federal Court issued a judgment finding trivago had engaged in conduct in breach of the ACL. On October 18 and 19, 2021, the Australian Federal Court heard submissions from the parties regarding penalties and other orders. In its submissions, the ACCC proposed a penalty of at least AU$90 million and an injunction restraining trivago from engaging in misleading conduct of the type found by the Australian Federal Court to be in contravention of the ACL. trivago submitted that an appropriate penalty for the court to impose would be in the order of up to AU$15 million. The parties await a ruling. We recorded an estimated probable loss of approximately $11 million with respect to these proceedings in a previous period. An estimate for the reasonable possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount reserved cannot be made.

We are cooperating with regulators in the investigations described above where applicable, but we are unable to predict what, if any, effect such actions will have on our business, industry practices or online commerce more generally.