Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
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-three lawsuits have been filed by cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy taxes. Forty-two 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-three 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. Twenty 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 $34 million as of March 31, 2013 and $35 million as of December 31, 2012. This reserve is based on our best estimate of probable losses and the ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount reserved cannot be made. 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. If we prevail in the litigation, for which a pay-to-play payment was made, the jurisdiction collecting the payment will be required to repay such amounts, plus interest. During 2009, we expensed $48 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings with the city of San Francisco. 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. The city has agreed, subject to documentation, that this assessment may be placed under a bond and not paid, and may proceed to a legal challenge. During 2010, we expensed $3 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings with the city of Santa Monica; these funds were returned to us by the city in December 2011 in exchange for a letter of credit. The online travel companies subsequently prevailed in the litigation and the letter of credit in favor of the city has been voided. Hotels.com is currently under audit by the State of Texas and there is a pay-to-play requirement to challenge an adverse audit result in court. Litigation Relating to Other Taxes. On November 7, 2012, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the online travel companies are liable for payment of Hawaii’s General Excise Tax. On January 11, 2013, the court held that the online travel companies owed General Excise Tax on the total amount paid by a customer for the online travel companies’ services and the charge for the hotel room. The court ruled that the online travel companies are obligated to remit past Hawaii general excise taxes with interest, which the Director of Taxation has claimed totals $110 million, comprised of $78 million relating to tax liability from January 2000 to December 2011 and $32 million in interest from January 2000 to December 2012 for Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire (“the Expedia Subsidiaries”). On March 15, 2013, the court assessed penalties against the online travel companies. Under this ruling the state is seeking penalties and interest of $60 million against the Expedia Subsidiaries, representing 50% of the tax liability plus interest thereon. On March 28, 2013, the online travel companies filed a petition for mandamus to the Hawaii Supreme Court requesting that the court reverse the trial court’s ruling that online travel companies must remit tax on gross bookings and therefore subject the hotel’s charge for the room to double taxation. On April 22, 2013, the Hawaii Supreme Court denied the online travel companies’ petition for mandamus. The case will now proceed on appeal. The state has dismissed without prejudice its common law claims for recovery of taxes. We strongly believe that the court ruling regarding the General Excise Tax is contrary to the plain language of the ordinances at issue as well as prior Hawaiian Supreme Court decisions, previous positions taken by the Hawaii Director of Taxation, and an opinion by the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. We intend to vigorously pursue our rights on appeal. The state is seeking to require us to pay an amount equal to the taxes, penalties and interest prior to appealing the court’s ruling. Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an admission that we believe we are subject to the taxes in question. To the extent our appeal is successful in reducing or eliminating the assessed amounts, the State of Hawaii would be required to repay such amounts, plus interest. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued $110 million, and during the three months ended March 31, 2013, we accrued an additional $60 million, in accrued expenses and other current liabilities, which represents our best estimate of the probable amount that we will be required to pay prior to appealing the court’s ruling. It is also reasonably possible that we will incur amounts in excess of the amounts accrued, which we estimate could be up to $22 million. The ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded and our estimates of possible additional assessments. 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 2014. 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, thirty-four 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 parties moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for consolidation of the cases. On December 11, 2012, the Panel issued an order consolidating and transferring the cases to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

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-three lawsuits have been filed by cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy taxes. Forty-two 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-three 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. Twenty 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 $34 million as of March 31, 2013 and $35 million as of December 31, 2012. This reserve is based on our best estimate of probable losses and the ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount reserved cannot be made. 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. If we prevail in the litigation, for which a pay-to-play payment was made, the jurisdiction collecting the payment will be required to repay such amounts, plus interest.

During 2009, we expensed $48 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings with the city of San Francisco. 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. The city has agreed, subject to documentation, that this assessment may be placed under a bond and not paid, and may proceed to a legal challenge. During 2010, we expensed $3 million related to monies paid in advance of litigation in occupancy tax proceedings with the city of Santa Monica; these funds were returned to us by the city in December 2011 in exchange for a letter of credit. The online travel companies subsequently prevailed in the litigation and the letter of credit in favor of the city has been voided. Hotels.com is currently under audit by the State of Texas and there is a pay-to-play requirement to challenge an adverse audit result in court.

Litigation Relating to Other Taxes. On November 7, 2012, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the online travel companies are liable for payment of Hawaii’s General Excise Tax. On January 11, 2013, the court held that the online travel companies owed General Excise Tax on the total amount paid by a customer for the online travel companies’ services and the charge for the hotel room. The court ruled that the online travel companies are obligated to remit past Hawaii general excise taxes with interest, which the Director of Taxation has claimed totals $110 million, comprised of $78 million relating to tax liability from January 2000 to December 2011 and $32 million in interest from January 2000 to December 2012 for Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire (“the Expedia Subsidiaries”). On March 15, 2013, the court assessed penalties against the online travel companies. Under this ruling the state is seeking penalties and interest of $60 million against the Expedia Subsidiaries, representing 50% of the tax liability plus interest thereon. On March 28, 2013, the online travel companies filed a petition for mandamus to the Hawaii Supreme Court requesting that the court reverse the trial court’s ruling that online travel companies must remit tax on gross bookings and therefore subject the hotel’s charge for the room to double taxation. On April 22, 2013, the Hawaii Supreme Court denied the online travel companies’ petition for mandamus. The case will now proceed on appeal. The state has dismissed without prejudice its common law claims for recovery of taxes.

We strongly believe that the court ruling regarding the General Excise Tax is contrary to the plain language of the ordinances at issue as well as prior Hawaiian Supreme Court decisions, previous positions taken by the Hawaii Director of Taxation, and an opinion by the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. We intend to vigorously pursue our rights on appeal. The state is seeking to require us to pay an amount equal to the taxes, penalties and interest prior to appealing the court’s ruling. Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an admission that we believe we are subject to the taxes in question. To the extent our appeal is successful in reducing or eliminating the assessed amounts, the State of Hawaii would be required to repay such amounts, plus interest. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we accrued $110 million, and during the three months ended March 31, 2013, we accrued an additional $60 million, in accrued expenses and other current liabilities, which represents our best estimate of the probable amount that we will be required to pay prior to appealing the court’s ruling. It is also reasonably possible that we will incur amounts in excess of the amounts accrued, which we estimate could be up to $22 million. The ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than the liabilities recorded and our estimates of possible additional assessments.

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 2014. 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, thirty-four 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 parties moved before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for consolidation of the cases. On December 11, 2012, the Panel issued an order consolidating and transferring the cases to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.