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, 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, which the Tax Court granted on March 1, 2022. The parties reached a settlement of all claims with the exception of those brought by the city of Tucson and, on July 25, 2022, the court dismissed those claims, thereby ending the matter as to those claims. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the city of Tucson’s claims and, on November 16, 2022, the Tax Court found in favor of the city of Tucson. The Tax Court issued a final judgment on January 18, 2023, and the Expedia Defendants filed a notice of appeal from that judgment on January 30, 2023. That appeal is 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. The court granted that motion in part, and denied it in part, on March 3, 2022. Trial in the case began on April 5 and concluded on April 13, 2022. On May 19, 2022, the trial court announced its decision in favor of the Expedia defendants, holding that they had no tax liability to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed notices of appeal and their appeal remains pending.

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. On August 12, 2022, the district court dismissed the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practice Claim but denied the motion to dismiss the common law claims. On May 16, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims, which remains pending.

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

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). The court granted that motion on March 25, 2022. On August 15, 2022, HomeAway.com, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, contractual undertaking, declaratory relief and injunctive relief causes of action and answered the remaining causes of action. The court has scheduled argument on HomeAway.com, Inc.'s and other defendants' motions to dismiss for February 14, 2023.

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. In January 2023, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle.

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 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. On August 18, 2022, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim in the Glen action, thereby ending that matter. On November 11, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim in the Del Valle matter. Currently, five cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and two cases are pending in the District of Delaware.

Paris City Hall Litigation. On January 28, 2021, Paris City Hall filed an action against HomeAway UK Ltd. (“HomeAway UK”) alleging that HomeAway UK had failed to comply with regulations relating to the sharing of supplier booking data in 2019 and 2020. A hearing on the matter was held on March 30, 2022. On November 30, 2022, the court ruled in Homeaway UK’s favor dismissing all claims. On January 12, 2023, Paris City Hall appealed the decision. That appeal remains pending.

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.

Matters Relating to Contractual Provisions with Accommodations Providers

Expedia Group companies are or have been involved in a number of investigations by 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.

In 2015, Expedia Group companies voluntarily waived certain rate, conditions and availability parity clauses in agreements with European hotel partners, resulting in most NCAs in Europe closing their investigations. However, certain related matters remain ongoing, including cases brought by the German Federal Cartel Office. Legislative bodies in France, Austria, Italy, Belgium and Portugal have also adopted domestic anti-parity clause legislation, which we believe in each case violates both EU and national legal principles. In December 2022, Switzerland also passed legislation taking action on price parity in Switzerland.

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, Japan 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.

Matters Relating to Online Marketplaces

Regulatory authorities in Europe (including the UK Competition and Markets Authority, or “CMA”), Australia, and elsewhere have also undertaken market studies, inquiries or investigations relating to the presentation of information on certain of our UK and European Union consumer-facing websites. We have agreed to offer certain voluntary undertakings in order to address the regulatory authorities' concerns.

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.