Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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, excise tax, sales 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 Occupancy Taxes. Ninety-five lawsuits have been filed by or against cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy and other taxes. Twenty-three 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 statutes or ordinances at issue do not apply to the services we provide and, therefore, that we do not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. We believe that the statutes or 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, forty 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-six 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 $68 million and $43 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. It is also reasonably possible that amounts paid in connection with these issues could include up to an additional $5 million related to interest payments in one jurisdiction. Our settlement 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 the settlement reserve are included within legal reserves, occupancy tax and other in the consolidated statements of operations. Pay-to-Play. Certain jurisdictions may assert that we are required to pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the ordinances. This prepayment of contested taxes is 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. 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 and also may be required to pay interest. We are also in various stages of inquiry or audit in multiple European Union jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom, regarding the application of VAT to our European Union related transactions. While we believe we comply with applicable VAT laws, rules and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may determine that we owe additional taxes. In certain jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, we may be required to “pay-to-play” any VAT assessment prior to contesting its validity. While we believe that we will be successful based on the merits of our positions with regard to the United Kingdom and other VAT audits in pay-to-play jurisdictions, it is nevertheless reasonably possible that we could be required to pay any assessed amounts in order to contest or litigate the applicability of any assessments and an estimate for a reasonably possible amount of any such payments cannot be made. The following are significant “pay-to-play” payments made by Expedia companies: Hawaii (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. As we had previously expensed the pay-to-play payments in prior periods, we recognized a gain in legal reserves, occupancy tax and other during the third quarter of 2015 related to this matter. 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 recently 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. In addition, final assessments by the Hawaii Department of Taxation for general exercise taxes against the Expedia companies, including Orbitz, relating to car rental transactions during the years 2000 to 2014 are currently 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 taxes are 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. The case is proceeding in the tax court for a calculation of amounts due. Upon completion of the tax court proceeding, the Expedia companies intend to appeal, and will be required to pay the full amount claimed due as a condition of appeal. The Hawaii tax court’s decision did not address final assessments for agency model car rental transactions for the time period 2000 to 2014 or “merchant model” car rental transactions for the tax year 2014, which also remain under review. San Francisco (Occupancy Tax). During 2009, Expedia companies were required to “pay-to-play” and paid $48 million in advance of litigation relating to occupancy tax proceedings with the city of San Francisco and in May 2014, the Expedia companies paid an additional $25.5 million under protest in order to contest additional assessments for later time periods. In addition, Orbitz in total has paid $4.6 million to the city of San Francisco to contest similar assessments issued against it by the city. On August 6, 2014, the California Court of Appeals stayed this case pending review and decision by the California Supreme Court of the City of San Diego, California Litigation. Matters Relating to Hotel Booking Practices. 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 has appealed the decision. More recently, 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 has 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. In addition, 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 August 3, 2016 with respect to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies. On September 16, 2016, Expedia submitted its statement with CADE concerning the complaint. A number of competition authorities, such as those in Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, have also inquired or initiated investigations into the travel industry and, in particular, in relation to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia. While the ultimate outcomes of these lawsuits, inquiries or investigations are uncertain and our circumstances are distinguishable from those of other online travel agencies subject to similar lawsuits, inquiries or investigations, we note in this context that on April 21, 2015 the competition authorities in France, Italy and Sweden announced a proposed set of commitments offered by Booking.com to resolve the parity clause cases brought by these authorities against it. The German Federal Cartel Office ("FCO") also has required another online travel company, Hotel Reservation Service ("HRS"), to remove certain clauses from its contracts with hotels. HRS appealed this decision, which the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf rejected on January 9, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the FCO announced that it had also required Booking.com to remove certain clauses from its contracts with German hotels. Booking.com announced that it will appeal this decision. In addition, 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, Expedia considers that this waiver is 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, the Austrian competition authority announced its intention to close its investigation against Expedia, and the competition authorities in Denmark, United Kingdom, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Ireland and Italy have announced either the closure of their investigation against Expedia or a decision not to open an investigation against Expedia, in each case having had regard to the changes implemented by Expedia. The Italian competition authority's decision has subsequently been appealed by two Italian hotel trade associations. 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. In addition, with effect from September 1, 2016, similar waivers to those provided by Expedia in Europe have been extended to Expedia’s agreements with its Australian hotel partners. This was done in consultation with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which has accordingly closed its investigation into the matter without taking any action. On July 9, 2015, the French National Assembly adopted Article 133 of the Loi Macron ("Article 133") that seeks to define the nature of the relationship between online reservation platforms and French hotels. Article 133 became effective on August 8, 2015. Expedia considers that Article 133 was drafted ambiguously and can be interpreted in a way that violates both EU and French legal principles. Therefore Expedia has initiated a complaint with the European Commission relating to Article 133. However, following the effective date, Expedia has been in contact with its hotel partners in France regarding the impact of Article 133.

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, excise tax, sales 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 Occupancy Taxes. Ninety-five lawsuits have been filed by or against cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy and other taxes. Twenty-three 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 statutes or ordinances at issue do not apply to the services we provide and, therefore, that we do not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. We believe that the statutes or 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, forty 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-six 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 $68 million and $43 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. It is also reasonably possible that amounts paid in connection with these issues could include up to an additional $5 million related to interest payments in one jurisdiction. Our settlement 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 the settlement reserve are included within legal reserves, occupancy tax and other in the consolidated statements of operations.

Pay-to-Play. Certain jurisdictions may assert that we are required to pay any assessed taxes prior to being allowed to contest or litigate the applicability of the ordinances. This prepayment of contested taxes is 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. 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 and also may be required to pay interest.

We are also in various stages of inquiry or audit in multiple European Union jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom, regarding the application of VAT to our European Union related transactions. While we believe we comply with applicable VAT laws, rules and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may determine that we owe additional taxes. In certain jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, we may be required to “pay-to-play” any VAT assessment prior to contesting its validity. While we believe that we will be successful based on the merits of our positions with regard to the United Kingdom and other VAT audits in pay-to-play jurisdictions, it is nevertheless reasonably possible that we could be required to pay any assessed amounts in order to contest or litigate the applicability of any assessments and an estimate for a reasonably possible amount of any such payments cannot be made.

The following are significant “pay-to-play” payments made by Expedia companies:

Hawaii (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. As we had previously expensed the pay-to-play payments in prior periods, we recognized a gain in legal reserves, occupancy tax and other during the third quarter of 2015 related to this matter. 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 recently 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.

In addition, final assessments by the Hawaii Department of Taxation for general exercise taxes against the Expedia companies, including Orbitz, relating to car rental transactions during the years 2000 to 2014 are currently 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 taxes are 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. The case is proceeding in the tax court for a calculation of amounts due. Upon completion of the tax court proceeding, the Expedia companies intend to appeal, and will be required to pay the full amount claimed due as a condition of appeal. The Hawaii tax court’s decision did not address final assessments for agency model car rental transactions for the time period 2000 to 2014 or “merchant model” car rental transactions for the tax year 2014, which also remain under review.

San Francisco (Occupancy Tax). During 2009, Expedia companies were required to “pay-to-play” and paid $48 million in advance of litigation relating to occupancy tax proceedings with the city of San Francisco and in May 2014, the Expedia companies paid an additional $25.5 million under protest in order to contest additional assessments for later time periods. In addition, Orbitz in total has paid $4.6 million to the city of San Francisco to contest similar assessments issued against it by the city. On August 6, 2014, the California Court of Appeals stayed this case pending review and decision by the California Supreme Court of the City of San Diego, California Litigation.

Matters Relating to Hotel Booking Practices. 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 has appealed the decision.

More recently, 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 has 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.

In addition, 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 August 3, 2016 with respect to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies. On September 16, 2016, Expedia submitted its statement with CADE concerning the complaint.

A number of competition authorities, such as those in Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland, have also inquired or initiated investigations into the travel industry and, in particular, in relation to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia.

While the ultimate outcomes of these lawsuits, inquiries or investigations are uncertain and our circumstances are distinguishable from those of other online travel agencies subject to similar lawsuits, inquiries or investigations, we note in this context that on April 21, 2015 the competition authorities in France, Italy and Sweden announced a proposed set of commitments offered by Booking.com to resolve the parity clause cases brought by these authorities against it. The German Federal Cartel Office ("FCO") also has required another online travel company, Hotel Reservation Service ("HRS"), to remove certain clauses from its contracts with hotels. HRS appealed this decision, which the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf rejected on January 9, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the FCO announced that it had also required Booking.com to remove certain clauses from its contracts with German hotels. Booking.com announced that it will appeal this decision. In addition, 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, Expedia considers that this waiver is 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, the Austrian competition authority announced its intention to close its investigation against Expedia, and the competition authorities in Denmark, United Kingdom, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Ireland and Italy have announced either the closure of their investigation against Expedia or a decision not to open an investigation against Expedia, in each case having had regard to the changes implemented by Expedia. The Italian competition authority's decision has subsequently been appealed by two Italian hotel trade associations. 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. In addition, with effect from September 1, 2016, similar waivers to those provided by Expedia in Europe have been extended to Expedia’s agreements with its Australian hotel partners. This was done in consultation with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which has accordingly closed its investigation into the matter without taking any action.

On July 9, 2015, the French National Assembly adopted Article 133 of the Loi Macron ("Article 133") that seeks to define the nature of the relationship between online reservation platforms and French hotels. Article 133 became effective on August 8, 2015. Expedia considers that Article 133 was drafted ambiguously and can be interpreted in a way that violates both EU and French legal principles. Therefore Expedia has initiated a complaint with the European Commission relating to Article 133. However, following the effective date, Expedia has been in contact with its hotel partners in France regarding the impact of Article 133.