XML 57 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.19.3
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
Note 10 – 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 Group. 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. One hundred one lawsuits have been filed by or against cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy and other taxes. Eleven 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 us or 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-seven 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. Thirty-three dismissals were based on a finding that we and the other defendants were not subject to the local tax ordinance or that the local government lacked standing to pursue its 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 and other taxes, consistent with applicable accounting principles and in light of all current facts and circumstances, in the amount of $66 million and $46 million as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. 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. For example, on September 13, 2018, the City of San Francisco refunded all pay-to-play payments previously made by Expedia Group companies, along with accumulated interest. The $78 million refund was recorded as a gain within legal reserves, occupancy tax and other in the consolidated statements of operations and $19 million of accumulated interest to interest income during the three months ended September 30, 2018.
We are in various stages of inquiry or audit with domestic and foreign tax authorities, some of which, including in the City of Los Angeles regarding hotel occupancy taxes and in the United Kingdom regarding the application of value added tax (“VAT”) to our European Union related transactions as discussed below, may impose a pay-to-play requirement to challenge an adverse inquiry or audit result in court.
The ultimate resolution of these contingencies may be greater or less than any pay-to-play payments made.
Matters Relating to International VAT. We are 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.
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. Expedia Group companies are or have been involved in investigations 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 Europe, investigations or inquiries into contractual parity provisions between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia Group companies, were initiated in 2012, 2013 and 2014 by NCAs in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. While the ultimate outcome of some of these investigations or inquiries remains uncertain, and the Expedia Group companies’ circumstances are distinguishable from other online travel companies subject to similar investigations and inquiries, we note in this context that on April 21, 2015, the French, Italian and Swedish NCAs, working in close cooperation with the European Commission, announced that they had accepted formal commitments offered by Booking.com to resolve and close the investigations against Booking.com in France, Italy and Sweden by Booking.com removing and/or modifying certain rate, conditions and availability parity provisions in its contracts with accommodation providers in France, Italy and Sweden as of July 1, 2015, among other commitments. Booking.com voluntarily extended the geographic scope of these commitments to accommodation providers throughout Europe as of the same date.
With effect from August 1, 2015, Expedia Group companies waived certain rate, conditions and availability parity clauses in agreements with European hotel partners for a period of five years. 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 have 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. Below are descriptions of additional rate parity-related matters of note in Europe.
The German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) has required another online travel company, Hotel Reservation Service (“HRS”), to remove certain clauses from its contracts with hotels. HRS’ appeal of this decision was rejected by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf on January 9, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the FCO announced that it had also required Booking.com by way of an infringement decision to remove certain clauses from its contracts with German hotels. Booking.com has appealed the decision and the appeal was heard by the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf on February 8, 2017. On June 4, 2019, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf issued its judgment in this matter and ruled that certain parity clauses are in compliance with applicable German and European competition rules and the FCO’s prohibition order against Booking.com was annulled. The decision is not yet final as the FCO has applied to the German Federal Supreme Court to admit an appeal from the decision.
The Italian competition authority's case closure decision against Booking.com and Expedia Group companies has subsequently been appealed by two Italian hotel trade associations, i.e. Federalberghi and AICA. These appeals remain at an early stage and no hearing date has been fixed.
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 certain Expedia Group companies, Booking.com and HRS to be prohibited under Swiss law. The decision explicitly notes that the Expedia Group companies' current contract terms with Swiss hotels are not subject to this prohibition. The Swiss competition authority imposed no fines or other sanctions against the Expedia Group companies and did not find an abuse of a dominant market position by the Expedia Group companies. The FCO’s case against the Expedia Group companies’ contractual parity provisions with accommodation providers in Germany remains open but is still at a preliminary stage with no formal allegations of wrong-doing having been communicated to the Expedia Group companies to date.
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 Group companies objecting to certain parity clauses in contracts between Expedia Group companies 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 appealed the decision and, on June 21, 2017, the Paris Court of Appeal published a judgment overturning the decision. The court annulled parity clauses contained in the agreements at issue, ordered the Expedia Group companies to amend their contracts, and imposed a fine. The Expedia Group companies have appealed the decision. The appeal will not stay payment of the fine.
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 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. On or around February 16, 2017, the court dismissed IHA’s action and declared the claimant liable for the Expedia Group defendants’ statutory costs. IHA appealed the decision and, on December 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals rejected IHA’s appeal. The Court of Appeals expressly confirmed that Expedia Group’s MFNs are in compliance both with European and German competition law. While IHA had indicated an intention to appeal the decision to the Federal Supreme Court, it has not lodged an appeal within the applicable deadline, with the consequence that the Court of Appeals judgment has now become final.
A working group of 10 European NCAs (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and the European Commission has been established by the European Competition Network (“ECN”) at the end of 2015 to monitor the functioning of the online hotel booking sector, following amendments made by a number of online travel companies (including Booking.com and Expedia Group companies) in relation to certain parity provisions in their contracts with hotels. The working group issued questionnaires to online travel agencies including Expedia Group companies, metasearch sites and hotels in 2016. The underlying results of the ECN monitoring exercise were published on April 6, 2017.
Legislative bodies in France (July 2015), Austria (December 2016), Italy (August 2017) and Belgium (August 2018) have also adopted new domestic anti-parity clause legislation. Expedia Group believes each of these pieces of legislation violates both EU and national legal principles and therefore, Expedia Group companies have challenged these laws at the European Commission. 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 required to draft legislation implementing the motion. The Company is unable to predict whether and with what content legislation will ultimately be adopted and, if so, when this might be the case. It is not yet clear how any adopted domestic anti-parity clause legislations and/or any possible future legislation in this area may affect Expedia Group's business.
Outside of Europe, a number of NCAs 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. 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 Group companies, on July 27, 2016 with respect to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies. On September 13, 2016, the Expedia Group companies submitted a response to the complaint to CADE. On March 27, 2018, the Expedia Group companies resolved CADE’s concerns based on a settlement implementing waivers substantially similar to those provided to accommodation providers in Europe. In late 2016, Expedia Group companies resolved the concerns of the Australia and New Zealand NCAs based on implementation of the waivers substantially similar to those provided to accommodation providers in Europe (on September 1, 2016 in Australia and on October 28, 2016 in New Zealand). More recently, however, the Australian NCA has reopened its investigation. On and with effect from March 22, 2019, Expedia Group voluntarily and unilaterally waived certain additional rate parity provisions in agreements with Australian hotel partners. Expedia Group companies are in ongoing discussions with a limited number of
NCAs in other countries in relation to their contracts with hotels. 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 in this investigation. Expedia Group is currently unable to predict the impact the implementation of the waivers both in Europe and elsewhere will have on Expedia Group's business, on investigations or inquiries by NCAs in other countries, or on industry practice more generally.
In addition, regulatory authorities in Europe (including the UK Competition and Markets Authority, or “CMA”), Australia, and elsewhere have 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.
On June 28, 2018, the CMA announced that it will be requiring hotel booking websites to take action to address concerns identified in the course of its ongoing investigation. After consulting with the CMA, on January 31, 2019, we agreed to offer certain voluntary undertakings with respect to the presentation of information on certain of our UK consumer-facing websites in order to address the CMA’s concerns. On February 4, 2019, the CMA confirmed that, as a result of the undertakings offered, it has closed its investigation without any admission or finding of liability. The undertakings become effective on September 1, 2019. On October 21, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority announced that it had accepted Expedia’s voluntary undertakings with respect to the presentation of information on its Italian website and closed the proceedings against Expedia without any admission or finding of liability. The undertakings became effective on September 1, 2019.
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 relating to trivago’s advertisements in Australia concerning the hotel prices available on trivago’s Australian site and trivago’s strike-through pricing practice. A trial took place and the parties await a ruling; an appropriate reserve has been accrued in respect of this matter.
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. Other than described above, we have not accrued a reserve in connection with the market studies, investigations, inquiries or legal proceedings described above either because the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is not probable, or the amount of any loss is not estimable.