Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 15 — Commitments and Contingencies

Letters of Credit, Purchase Obligations and Guarantees

We have commitments and obligations that include purchase obligations, guarantees and LOCs, which could potentially require our payment in the event of demands by third parties or contingent events. The following table presents these commitments and obligations as of December 31, 2023:


			By Period
	Total		Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		More than 5 years
	(In millions)
Purchase obligations	$	1,020	$	426	$	585	$	9	$	—
Guarantees	39		32		7		—		—
Letters of credit	44		42		2		—		—
	$	1,103	$	500	$	594	$	9	$	—

Our purchase obligations represent the minimum obligations we have under agreements with certain of our vendors. These minimum obligations are less than our projected use for those periods. Payments may be more than the minimum obligations based on actual use.

We have guarantees which consist primarily of bonds relating to tax assessments that we are contesting as well as bonds required by certain foreign countries’ aviation authorities for the potential non-delivery, by us, of packaged travel sold in those countries. The authorities also require that a portion of the total amount of packaged travel sold be bonded. Our guarantees also include certain surety bonds related to various company performance obligations.

Our LOCs consist of stand-by LOCs, underwritten by a group of lenders, which we primarily issue for certain regulatory purposes as well as to certain hotel properties to secure our payment for hotel room transactions. The contractual expiration dates of these LOCs are shown in the table above. There were no material claims made against any stand-by LOCs during the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021.

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 three lawsuits have been filed by or against cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy and other taxes. Seven 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, fifty 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-five 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 $46 million and $44 million as of December 31, 2023 and 2022. 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 in various stages of inquiry or audit with various tax authorities, some of which, including in the City of Los Angeles regarding hotel occupancy taxes, may impose a pay-to-play requirement to challenge an adverse inquiry or audit result in court.

Matters Relating to International VAT. We are in various stages of inquiry or audit in multiple European Union jurisdictions 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 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. 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, or "ACL," relating to trivago’s advertisements in Australia concerning the hotel prices available on trivago’s Australian site, trivago’s strike-through pricing practice and other aspects of the way offers for accommodation were displayed on trivago's Australian website. On January 20, 2020, the Australian Federal Court issued a judgment finding trivago had engaged in conduct in breach of the ACL. On October 18 and 19, 2021, the court heard submissions from the parties regarding penalties and other orders. On April 22, 2022, the Australian Federal Court issued a judgment ordering trivago to pay a penalty of AU$44.7 million, which was paid in the second quarter of 2022, and to cover the ACCC’s costs arising from the proceedings. The court also enjoined trivago from engaging in misleading conduct of the type found by the Australian Federal Court to be in contravention of the ACL. We recorded an estimated loss of approximately $11 million with respect to these proceedings in a previous period and an additional loss of approximately $23 million during the first quarter of 2022, for a total of approximately $34 million previously included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities as of March 31, 2022.