A Cuban-American family claimed Cuba seized its island in 1959, won a $119.4 million verdict against Expedia companies, then saw a judge overturn it | World News

The dispute over a Cuban island seized after the 1959 revolution has reached an unusual point in American legal history. As reported by Transnational Litigation Blog (TLB), in April 2025, a jury in Florida found four corporate defendants associated with Expedia liable under a US law dealing with property confiscated by the Cuban government. The award, reported at approximately $29.8 million per defendant, totaling $119.4 million, centred on a claim brought by Cuban-American businessman Mario Echevarría, whose family said it had lost its ownership rights to the island more than six decades earlier.

A property dispute rooted in Cuba’s revolutionary past

The Cuban Revolution brought sweeping changes to property ownership, with the government confiscating assets claimed by private owners. Some former owners and their descendants later pursued claims in US courts under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, enacted in 1996. The provision was activated for private lawsuits in 2019, allowing eligible claimants to seek damages over commercial activity involving property allegedly confiscated by Cuba.Echevarría maintained that his family had owned an island off Cuba’s coast before the government took control of it. The property later became associated with tourism, with hotels operating on land that he alleged had been confiscated. His case was not simply about whether the family had once owned the island. It also asked whether companies facilitating hotel reservations could be held responsible for making money from property that had allegedly been taken unlawfully.

The US law that reopened old confiscation claims

Congress passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act in 1996 (Helms-Burton Act). Its Title III provision created a route for eligible US nationals to seek compensation from people or companies that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government.For years, however, presidents suspended the provision allowing private lawsuits. That changed in 2019, when President Donald Trump ended the suspension, opening the door to claims that had previously been difficult or impossible to pursue under Title III.

Why Expedia and its associated companies faced trial

Echevarría brought his case against four corporate defendants associated with Expedia. Their involvement in online travel services placed them within the chain of commercial activity connected to the hotels, although their individual roles were not identical.Before trial, the defendants sought summary judgment on several grounds. They challenged Echevarría’s claim to the property, disputed whether the land had been confiscated in a way that supported the lawsuit and argued that their booking services did not amount to trafficking. They also contested the extent to which damages could account for the hotels and other improvements rather than the underlying land alone.A further issue concerned the distinction between Expedia Group, Inc., the parent company, and the operating businesses that provided travel services. The parent company argued that it should not automatically be held responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries.In an opinion denying summary judgment, District Judge Federico Moreno concluded that important factual disputes remained unresolved. Questions about the family’s ownership, the property’s legal status under Cuban law and the relationship between the corporate entities could not simply be settled at that stage.The court also considered allegations that Expedia Group had signed lodging contracts with hotels and worked with Cuba’s Ministry of Tourism to promote travel. Those activities raised questions about whether the parent company might have been directly involved in the relevant commercial arrangements, or whether the relationship between the businesses could support liability through an agency theory.

What the $29.8 million verdict established

In April 2025, the jury found in Echevarría’s favour against the four corporate defendants. The verdict was widely described as the first successful jury verdict under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, giving the case significance beyond the immediate dispute over the island.The result indicated that the jury accepted the plaintiff’s case sufficiently to find the defendants liable under the statute. The pre-trial ruling had identified several disputed questions, including whether the companies knowingly benefited from activity involving confiscated property and whether their conduct continued after they became aware of the lawsuit.However, the verdict should not be taken to mean that every legal argument raised before trial was resolved in the same way. The earlier ruling identified alternative routes to liability and factual questions for the jury. The reported award of approximately $29.8 million also illustrates the potential financial exposure associated with Title III claims.

The questions that remain after the jury’s decision

A verdict does not necessarily bring every dispute to an end. The legal consequences of the ruling depend on the subsequent procedural history, including any post-trial motions, challenges to the judgment or appeal. The April 2025 decision established a significant result for Echevarría, but it should not be treated as proof that every possible avenue of challenge has been exhausted.The underlying ownership questions also help explain why these cases can be difficult to resolve. The property was allegedly taken more than 60 years before the jury considered the dispute. Establishing who owned it at the time, how ownership passed through inheritance and what legal effect the confiscation had requires evidence and an examination of Cuban law.

The evidence that led a judge to overturn the Expedia Cuba verdict

As reported by Miami Herald, the case took a decisive turn in September 2025, when a federal judge set aside the jury’s verdict against Expedia-related companies. Judge Federico A. Moreno ruled that Echevarría had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that Expedia Group directly facilitated hotel bookings through its subsidiary, Expedia Inc. He also found that Orbitz and Hotels.com had not knowingly and intentionally trafficked in the confiscated property as required under the Helms-Burton Act. The original verdicts would have totalled approximately $119.4 million across four corporate defendants.Expedia Group welcomed the decision, saying the judge had found that the company did not violate the law. However, Echevarría’s legal team indicated that it intended to continue fighting the case. The ruling marked a setback for the Cuban-American businessman, but it also highlighted the legal hurdles involved in proving that travel companies knowingly profited from property confiscated by the Cuban government. The outcome left the landmark case as a reminder that winning a jury verdict does not necessarily mean a claimant will ultimately secure damages.