Expedia hotel price antitrust lawsuit (Andrews v. Expedia Group)

Three hotel guests filed a proposed nationwide antitrust class action against Expedia Group, Inc. on October 2, 2026. The case is Andrews v. Expedia Group, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-03743, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, and it is assigned to U.S. District Judge Lauren King.

The complaint alleges that Expedia's hotel contracts and search-ranking rules stop hotels from offering lower prices on their own websites or on rival travel sites. If that is true, the plaintiffs say, travelers paid inflated room rates even when they never used Expedia. Expedia's own customers are not in either proposed class. Expedia calls the allegations meritless, and no court has ruled on them.

Expedia Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1111 Expedia Group Way West in Seattle. It runs online travel agencies, websites where travelers search and book hotels, flights and rentals from many providers in one place. Its hotel booking brands named in the complaint are Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Travelocity, Orbitz and CheapTickets. Hotels list rooms on these sites and pay Expedia a commission, a percentage of the booking price, for each completed stay.

The plaintiffs are Lorraine Rocci of Royersford, Pennsylvania, who says she booked directly with Hilton; Ronisha Andrews of Carlsbad, California, who says she booked a WoodSpring Suites hotel in Santee, California, through Priceline; and Pak Seong Hoi of Bellevue, Washington, who says he booked the Davenport Tower in Spokane through Priceline. Priceline is a rival booking site that Expedia does not own.

The plaintiffs are represented by Terrell Marshall Law Group of Seattle, Berger Montague and Freedman Normand Friedland. Hotels such as Hilton are not defendants. The complaint names them only as examples of "Listed Hotels," meaning U.S. hotels that list rooms on an Expedia site.

The complaint describes two practices. The first is a clause in Section C.1 of Expedia's standard hotel agreement. It says a hotel's rates on Expedia will be "equal to or better than" the rates on the hotel's own public online booking channels. Antitrust lawyers call this a rate parity or most-favored-nation clause. The clause, as quoted, exempts hotels located in Australia. The complaint says Expedia waived the clause there in March 2019 after an Australian competition regulator's investigation.

The second practice, the complaint alleges, works through software rather than contract text. It describes four mechanisms: a "rate competitiveness" ranking factor, a "most likely to convert" ranking factor, an automatic rate-match tool, and the VIP Access program, which ties extra visibility to rate parity. According to the complaint, a hotel that offers a lower price on Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda or Trip.com is pushed down in Expedia's search results.

The complaint also points to Europe. It says the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on September 19, 2024, that clauses restricting hotels' own prices are not necessary to run a booking platform, and that Booking.com removed similar clauses across the European Economic Area after being designated a "gatekeeper" under the EU Digital Markets Act in May 2024. Those foreign decisions do not bind a U.S. court.

The complaint alleges that Expedia handles nearly 80% of U.S. hotel bookings made through online travel agencies, measured by dollar value. It says Expedia charges hotels about 15% of each booking, and 25% to 30% for hotels that buy extra visibility. Because hotels must recover that cost, the plaintiffs allege, the commission is built into room rates on every channel. They claim the conduct violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the main federal antitrust law.

The complaint also alleges that weak competition let Expedia keep opaque fees, strict cancellation policies and poor customer service. These are allegations, not findings.

An Expedia spokesperson told The Seattle Times and The New York Times that the allegations are "meritless." The spokesperson said the company has given consumers "competitive offerings and better value from travel suppliers" since its founding in 1996. Expedia had not filed a court response as of October 17, 2026.

Nothing on the merits. The case is at the complaint stage. The court has not decided whether Expedia has monopoly power, whether the clause or ranking rules are unlawful, whether hotel prices were inflated, or whether a class can be certified. The plaintiffs' out-of-state lawyers have said they will seek permission to appear in the case.

The complaint proposes two nationwide classes covering October 2, 2022, until the challenged conduct stops. The Direct-Booked Class covers people and entities in the United States who bought a U.S. hotel stay directly from a Listed Hotel through its own website, app, call center or loyalty portal. The OTA Class covers people who booked a stay at a Listed Hotel through a non-Expedia booking site and paid the hotel or that site.

Bookings made through Expedia's own sites are not part of either proposed class. Expedia, its affiliates and employees, government entities and the assigned judges are excluded. No class has been certified, and the definitions may change.

There is no claim form and nothing to file with the court. If you booked U.S. hotel stays directly with a hotel or through a non-Expedia site since October 2022, you can save confirmation emails, receipts and loyalty account histories in case they are needed later.

Readers with questions can contact Terrell Marshall Law Group, Berger Montague or their own lawyer. Contacting a firm does not make you a client, and submitting an inquiry through Class Action Pulse does not join the lawsuit.

Nothing is available now. The complaint asks for treble damages, meaning three times any overcharge the plaintiffs prove, plus interest, attorneys' fees and a permanent court order ending the challenged practices. These are requests. Money would come only from a judgment or a court-approved settlement, and neither exists.

• October 2, 2022: Start of the proposed class period.
• October 2, 2026: Complaint filed in Seattle.
• October 16, 2026: Expedia calls the claims meritless in statements reported by The Seattle Times and The New York Times.

There is no claim, opt-out or objection deadline. Those rights arise only after a class is certified or a settlement is proposed, and notice would explain them.

An online travel agency, or OTA, is a website that lets travelers compare and book hotels from many companies. A most-favored-nation clause is a contract term that guarantees one seller the best price offered anywhere. Rate parity means a hotel charges the same price on every channel. Treble damages are triple damages that federal antitrust law allows a winning private plaintiff. Class certification is the court's decision to let named plaintiffs represent a larger group.

Expedia is expected to respond to the complaint, possibly with a motion to dismiss, which asks the court to end the case before evidence is exchanged. If the case survives, the parties would exchange records, including hotel contracts and ranking data. A class certification fight would follow.

A practical note: loyalty programs and booking sites often let you download your stay history. Doing that now is easier than reconstructing old trips later.

The complaint supports the parties, class definitions, contract language, ranking mechanisms, market share, commission figures and relief, all of which are unproven allegations. The CourtListener docket supports the filing date and judge. The Seattle Times and New York Times support Expedia's statement. The size of any overcharge, the number of class members and Expedia's legal defenses are unknown.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.