MIAMI — Expedia Group secured a decisive legal victory on Monday in a federal court in Miami, where Cuban American plaintiffs accused the travel company and its affiliates of profiting from hotels and land confiscated by the Cuban government.

The plaintiffs sought recourse under the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, a U.S. law permitting naturalized American citizens to sue entities alleged to be “trafficking” in property seized during Cuba’s 1959 revolution. The lawsuit contended that Expedia facilitated bookings at five hotels situated on land that had been nationalized by the Cuban government and was originally owned by the plaintiffs’ families.

However, the jury found the plaintiffs failed to present adequate evidence of ownership or official documentation confirming confiscation of the properties, leading to a ruling in favor of Expedia. The verdict rendered other legal arguments moot, including whether Expedia’s business activities fell under authorized travel licenses issued during the Obama administration, a point the jury did not address.

Expedia declined immediate comment following the verdict but had previously asserted it operated under valid licenses that authorized travel commerce in Cuba during periods of relaxed U.S.-Cuban relations. After the Trump administration rolled back the Obama-era easing of sanctions in 2019, Expedia ceased all Cuba bookings in April of last year.

The case marked Expedia’s second significant legal win concerning claims related to confiscated property in Cuba. Last year, the company prevailed in a separate lawsuit seeking over $1.7 billion in damages linked to hotel bookings on land formerly owned by the Sanchez Hill family.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Andres Rivero criticized Expedia’s role, stating the company engaged in business “in league with the Cuban communist partners.” Yet, David Shank, representing Expedia, underscored that the case centered on legal issues, not policy debates: “This case is not about what the right policy in Cuba is.” Shank further argued that Expedia did not knowingly traffic in confiscated property and promptly ceased dealings once the claims arose.

Industry experts noted the challenges inherent in pursuing Helms-Burton lawsuits, particularly given the historical nature of property claims. John Kavulich of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council highlighted ongoing litigation under the Act, including cases advancing toward the Supreme Court. Paolo Spadoni, a political economist specializing in Cuba’s tourism industry, characterized Expedia’s victory as indicative of the difficulties Cuban American claimants face in establishing legally recognized ownership rights over assets expropriated decades ago, beyond demonstrating that companies benefited economically.

During the trial, plaintiffs attempted to establish inherited ownership through testimony and historical documents. Plaintiff Maricela Mata presented faded records purportedly linking her family to the San Carlos hotel in Cienfuegos, Cuba, which her grandfather built in 1928. Expedia’s attorney countered these were commercial registries that did not prove land ownership. Mario Echevarria, another plaintiff, claimed his family owned Cayo Coco, an island developed into a resort in the 1990s; however, the defense questioned the clarity and validity of such ownership claims over the 143-square-mile island.

Notably, in 2025 a Miami jury awarded Echevarria nearly $30 million in damages related to other properties on Cayo Coco where Expedia operated through affiliates. That verdict was later vacated by a judge, who ruled Expedia could not be held liable for actions of its subsidiaries. That case is currently under appeal.