Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8 – Commitments and Contingencies *Legal Proceedings* In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to various lawsuits. Management does not expect these lawsuits to have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of Expedia. We also evaluate other potential contingent matters, including value-added tax, federal excise tax, transient occupancy or accommodation tax and similar matters. We do not believe that the aggregate amount of liability that could be reasonably possible with respect to these matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial results; however, litigation is inherently uncertain and the actual losses incurred in the event that our legal proceedings were to result in unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial performance. Litigation Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes. Eighty lawsuits have been filed by cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy taxes. Forty-four lawsuits are currently active. These lawsuits are in various stages and we continue to defend against the claims made in them vigorously. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, we believe that the ordinances at issue do not apply to the services we provide, namely the facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that we do not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. We believe that the ordinances at issue generally impose occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations. To date, thirty of these lawsuits have been dismissed. Some of these dismissals have been without prejudice and, generally, allow the governmental entity or entities to seek administrative remedies prior to pursuing further litigation. Eighteen dismissals were based on a finding that we and the other defendants were not subject to the local hotel occupancy tax ordinance or that the local government lacked standing to pursue their claims. As a result of this litigation and other attempts by certain jurisdictions to levy such taxes, we have established a reserve for the potential settlement of issues related to hotel occupancy taxes, consistent with applicable accounting principles and in light of all current facts and circumstances, in the amount of $36 million as of September 30, 2012 and $32 million as of December 31, 2011. This reserve is based on our best estimate and the ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded. In addition, as of December 31, 2011, we had an accrual totaling $10 million related to court decisions and final settlements. Changes to these settlement reserves are included within legal reserves, occupancy tax and other in the consolidated statements of operations. In connection with various occupancy tax audits and assessments, certain jurisdictions may assert that taxpayers are required to pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the ordinances, which is referred to as “pay-to-play.” These jurisdictions may attempt to require that we pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the tax ordinance. 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. During 2010 and 2009, we expensed $3 million and $48 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings in the cities of Santa Monica and San Francisco. In each case, we paid such amounts in order to be allowed to pursue litigation challenging whether we are required to pay hotel occupancy tax on the portion of the customer payment we retain as compensation and, if so, the actual amounts owed. We do not believe that the amounts we retain as compensation are subject to the cities’ hotel occupancy tax ordinances. If we prevail in the litigation (including any appeal), the cities will be required to repay these amounts, plus interest. In December 2011, the city of Santa Monica returned the $3 million in exchange for a letter of credit. In June 2012, the city of San Francisco issued additional assessments of tax, penalties and interest for the time period from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the fourth quarter of 2011 against the travel companies, including $22 million against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. The additional assessments, including the prepayment of such assessments, have been contested by the online companies. Matters Relating to Hotel Booking Practices. On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia, Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC (“IHG”) have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations. The Statement of Objections alleges that Expedia and Booking.com entered into separate agreements with IHG that restricted each online travel company’s ability to discount the price of IHG hotel rooms. The OFT limited its investigation to a small number of companies, but has stated that the investigation is likely to have wider implications for the industry within the United Kingdom. The Statement of Objections does not constitute a finding of infringement and all parties have the opportunity to respond. If the OFT maintains its objections after the companies’ responses, the OFT can issue a final decision. In such a case a final decision would be issued at the earliest in 2013. An appeal of an adverse OFT decision is to the English courts but may involve a reference on matters of European Union law to the European Court of Justice. We are unable at this time to predict the outcome of the OFT proceeding and any appeal. In addition, a number of competition authorities in other European countries have initiated investigations in relation to certain contractual arrangements between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia. These investigations differ in relation to the parties involved and the precise nature of the concerns. Since August 20, 2012, twenty-one putative class action lawsuits, which refer to the OFT’s Statement of Objections, have been initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travel companies, including Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance for online hotel room reservations, including but not limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust enrichment. The cases are currently pending in multiple federal and state courts. The parties have moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for consolidation of the cases.

Note 8 – Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, we are a party to various lawsuits. Management does not expect these lawsuits to have a material impact on the liquidity, results of operations, or financial condition of Expedia. We also evaluate other potential contingent matters, including value-added tax, federal excise tax, transient occupancy or accommodation tax and similar matters. We do not believe that the aggregate amount of liability that could be reasonably possible with respect to these matters would have a material adverse effect on our financial results; however, litigation is inherently uncertain and the actual losses incurred in the event that our legal proceedings were to result in unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial performance.

Litigation Relating to Hotel Occupancy Taxes. Eighty lawsuits have been filed by cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy taxes. Forty-four lawsuits are currently active. These lawsuits are in various stages and we continue to defend against the claims made in them vigorously. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, we believe that the ordinances at issue do not apply to the services we provide, namely the facilitation of hotel reservations, and, therefore, that we do not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. We believe that the ordinances at issue generally impose occupancy and other taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations. To date, thirty of these lawsuits have been dismissed. Some of these dismissals have been without prejudice and, generally, allow the governmental entity or entities to seek administrative remedies prior to pursuing further litigation. Eighteen dismissals were based on a finding that we and the other defendants were not subject to the local hotel occupancy tax ordinance or that the local government lacked standing to pursue their claims. As a result of this litigation and other attempts by certain jurisdictions to levy such taxes, we have established a reserve for the potential settlement of issues related to hotel occupancy taxes, consistent with applicable accounting principles and in light of all current facts and circumstances, in the amount of $36 million as of September 30, 2012 and $32 million as of December 31, 2011. This reserve is based on our best estimate and the ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded. In addition, as of December 31, 2011, we had an accrual totaling $10 million related to court decisions and final settlements. Changes to these settlement reserves are included within legal reserves, occupancy tax and other in the consolidated statements of operations.

In connection with various occupancy tax audits and assessments, certain jurisdictions may assert that taxpayers are required to pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the ordinances, which is referred to as “pay-to-play.” These jurisdictions may attempt to require that we pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the tax ordinance. 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. During 2010 and 2009, we expensed $3 million and $48 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings in the cities of Santa Monica and San Francisco. In each case, we paid such amounts in order to be allowed to pursue litigation challenging whether we are required to pay hotel occupancy tax on the portion of the customer payment we retain as compensation and, if so, the actual amounts owed. We do not believe that the amounts we retain as compensation are subject to the cities’ hotel occupancy tax ordinances. If we prevail in the litigation (including any appeal), the cities will be required to repay these amounts, plus interest. In December 2011, the city of Santa Monica returned the $3 million in exchange for a letter of credit. In June 2012, the city of San Francisco issued additional assessments of tax, penalties and interest for the time period from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the fourth quarter of 2011 against the travel companies, including $22 million against Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire. The additional assessments, including the prepayment of such assessments, have been contested by the online companies.

Matters Relating to Hotel Booking Practices. On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia, Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC (“IHG”) have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations. The Statement of Objections alleges that Expedia and Booking.com entered into separate agreements with IHG that restricted each online travel company’s ability to discount the price of IHG hotel rooms. The OFT limited its investigation to a small number of companies, but has stated that the investigation is likely to have wider implications for the industry within the United Kingdom.

The Statement of Objections does not constitute a finding of infringement and all parties have the opportunity to respond. If the OFT maintains its objections after the companies’ responses, the OFT can issue a final decision. In such a case a final decision would be issued at the earliest in 2013. An appeal of an adverse OFT decision is to the English courts but may involve a reference on matters of European Union law to the European Court of Justice. We are unable at this time to predict the outcome of the OFT proceeding and any appeal. In addition, a number of competition authorities in other European countries have initiated investigations in relation to certain contractual arrangements between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia. These investigations differ in relation to the parties involved and the precise nature of the concerns.

Since August 20, 2012, twenty-one putative class action lawsuits, which refer to the OFT’s Statement of Objections, have been initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs alleging claims against the online travel companies, including Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged resale price maintenance for online hotel room reservations, including but not limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection statutes and common law tort claims, such as unjust enrichment. The cases are currently pending in multiple federal and state courts. The parties have moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for consolidation of the cases.