| Commitments and Contingencies | (9) Commitments and Contingencies
Leases
The Company leases certain warehouse and office space, equipment, furniture and computer software under both capital and noncancelable operating leases that expire at various dates through 2026. The Company is responsible, under all leases, for related building maintenance and property taxes. Certain leases contain periodic rent escalation adjustments and renewal options. Total rental expense was $47 million and $40 million for the three months ended March 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.
Litigation
The Company is subject to legal proceedings and other matters arising in the ordinary course of business. Although it is reasonably possible the Company may incur losses upon conclusion of such matters, an estimate of any loss or range of loss cannot be made. In the opinion of management, it is expected that amounts, if any, which may be required to satisfy such contingencies will not be material in relation to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.
Litigation Relating to Occupancy Taxes. Ninety-six lawsuits have been filed by or against cities, counties and states involving hotel occupancy and other taxes. Fifteen lawsuits are currently active. These lawsuits are in various stages and Expedia continues to defend against the claims made in them vigorously. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, Expedia believes that the statutes or ordinances at issue do not apply to the services it provides and, therefore, that Expedia does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. Expedia believes 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-two 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-eight dismissals were based on a finding that Expedia 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, Expedia has 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 $45 million as of March 31, 2018. It is also reasonably possible that amounts paid in connection with these issues could include up to an additional $57 million related to tax, interest and penalties in one jurisdiction. Expedia’s settlement reserve is based on its 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 or disclosed cannot be made. Changes to the settlement reserve are included within Legal reserves, occupancy tax and other in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.
In addition, Expedia was audited by the state of Colorado. The state issued assessments for claimed tax, interest and penalty in the approximate amount of $23 million for the periods December 1, 1999 through December 31, 2005 and January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. Expedia does not agree with these assessments and has filed protests.
Pay-to-Play. Certain jurisdictions may assert that Expedia is 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 Expedia believes it is subject to such taxes and, even when such payments are made, Expedia continues to defend its position vigorously. If Expedia prevails 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.
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. 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 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.
The Department of Taxation also issued final assessments for general excise taxes against the Expedia companies, including Orbitz, dated December 23, 2015 for the time period 2000 to 2014 for hotel and car rental revenue for “agency model” transactions. Those assessments are under review in the Hawaii tax courts. The Hawaii tax court has scheduled trial on the agency hotel and car rental matters for February 4, 2019. On December 29, 2017, the defendant online travel companies filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On January 10, 2018, the Department of Taxation has asked the tax court to stay proceedings in the agency hotel and car rental case pending a decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the merchant model car rental case addressed below. The defendants have opposed that request. On February 5, 2018, the tax court granted the motion to stay.
Final assessments by the Hawaii Department of Taxation for general exercise taxes against the Expedia companies, including Orbitz, relating to merchant car rental transactions during the years 2000 to 2014 are also 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 general excise tax is 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. On April 25, 2017, the court entered a stipulated order and final judgment. On May 15, 2017, the Expedia companies paid under protest the full amount claimed due, or approximately $16.7 million, as a condition of appeal. The parties filed notices of cross-appeal from the order. The appeals were transferred to the Hawaii Supreme Court which heard argument on the appeals on April 5, 2018. The parties await a ruling. The Hawaii tax court’s decision did not resolve merchant 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. The California Court of Appeals has lifted the stay for this case and the appeal is proceeding.
Other Jurisdictions. Expedia is also in various stages of inquiry or audit with domestic and foreign tax authorities, some of which, including in the United Kingdom, regarding the application of value added tax (“VAT”) to its European Union related transactions as discussed below, 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 the pay-to-play payments made and Expedia’s estimates of additional assessments mentioned above.
Matters Relating to International VAT . Expedia is in various stages of inquiry or audit in multiple European Union jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, regarding the application of VAT to Expedia’s European Union related transactions. While Expedia believes it complies with applicable VAT laws, rules and regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may determine that it owes additional taxes. In certain jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, it may be required to “pay-to-play” any VAT assessment prior to contesting its validity. While Expedia believes that it will be successful based on the merits of its positions with regard to the United Kingdom and other VAT audits in pay-to-play jurisdictions, it is nevertheless reasonably possible that Expedia 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 is or has been involved in investigations predominately related to whether certain parity clauses in contracts between Expedia entities and accommodation providers, sometimes also referred to as "most favored nation" provisions, are anti-competitive.
In Europe, investigations or inquiries into contractual parity provisions between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia, 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 Expedia’s circumstances are distinguishable from other online travel companies subject to similar investigations and inquiries, Expedia notes 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 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, certain Expedia entities 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, 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 these waivers, nearly all NCAs in Europe have announced either the closure of their investigation or inquiries involving Expedia entities or a decision not to open an investigation or inquiry involving Expedia entities. 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. Those proceedings remain ongoing.
The Italian competition authority's case closure decision against Booking.com and certain Expedia entities 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 entities, Booking.com and HRS to be prohibited under Swiss law. The decision explicitly notes that Expedia's current contract terms contained in the agreements between Expedia entities and the Swiss hotels are not subject to this prohibition. The Swiss competition authority imposed no fines or other sanctions against Expedia entities and did not find an abuse of a dominant market position by Expedia entities. The FCO’s case against Expedia entities’ 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 entities 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 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 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 entities to amend its contracts, and imposed a fine. The Expedia entities have appealed the decision. The appeal will not stay payment of the fine and Expedia has recorded a related reserve .
Hotelverband Deutschland (“IHA”) e.V. (a German hotel association) brought proceedings before the Cologne regional court against Expedia, 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 defendant Expedia entities’ 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 entities’ 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 certain Expedia entities) in relation to certain parity provisions in their contracts with hotels. The working group issued questionnaires to online travel agencies including certain Expedia entities, 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) and Italy (August 2017) have also adopted new domestic anti-parity clause legislation. Expedia believes each of these pieces of legislation violates both EU and national legal principles and therefore, Expedia has 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. Moreover, in Belgium, the government is also reviewing narrow parity provisions. Expedia is unable to predict whether these proposals in their current form or in another form 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’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. 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 July 27, 2016 with respect to parity provisions in contracts between hotels and online travel companies. On September 13, 2016, Expedia submitted its response to the complaint to CADE. In late 2016, Expedia 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 reopened its investigation. Expedia is in ongoing discussions with a limited number of NCAs in other countries in relation to its contracts with hotels. Expedia is currently unable to predict the impact the implementation of the waivers both in Europe and elsewhere will have on Expedia's business, on investigations or inquiries by NCAs in other countries, or on industry practice more generally.
In addition, regulatory authorities in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere recently initiated market studies, inquiries and investigations into online marketplaces and how information is presented to consumers using those marketplaces, investigating practices such as search results rankings and algorithms, discount claims, disclosure of charges, and availability and similar messaging. Expedia is unable to predict the implications of these market studies, inquiries and investigations on Expedia’s business.
Certain Risks and Concentrations
Expedia is subject to certain risks and concentrations including dependence on relationships with travel suppliers, primarily airlines and hotels, dependence on third-party technology providers, exposure to risks associated with online commerce security and payment related fraud. Expedia also relies on global distribution system partners and third-party service providers for certain fulfillment services.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Expedia Holdings did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have, or are reasonably likely to have, a current or future effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. |
