According to the jury, the claimants did not provide clear evidence regarding ownership of the land in Cuba.
14ymedio, Madrid, September 1, 2026 / A Miami jury on Monday handed another legal victory to the American travel agency Expedia Group. The court concluded that Cuban-Americans who sued the company for exploiting properties confiscated from their relatives by the Cuban regime after 1959 had failed to prove ownership.
The plaintiffs claimed that Expedia had profited by facilitating reservations at five hotels located on land that had belonged to their relatives before the Revolution. The jury determined, however, that they lacked evidence to establish this ownership, and therefore did not even consider one of the company’s main lines of defense: that it had conducted these transactions entirely legally, protected by travel licenses issued during Barack Obama’s presidency.
“These accused used these properties in alliance with their Cuban communist partners,” said Andres Rivero, the plaintiffs’ attorney, as quoted by The New York Times. Expedia’s attorney, David Shank, argued that the case did not revolve around the opinion on the policy toward Cuba, however disagreeable it might be.
Expedia’s lawyer, David Shank, argued that the case did not revolve around the opinion on the policy toward Cuba, however disagreeable it might be.
Expedia’s defense argued that the company did not know who owned the land on which the hotels were located and that, in fact, it ceased operations when it learned that the families who filed the complaint—the Echevarría and Mata families—were claiming ownership. Furthermore, Expedia stopped operating in Cuba when Donald Trump reversed Obama’s policy on the matter.
“We are pleased with the jury’s decision, which affirms the position we have maintained the entire time,” said a company spokesperson, thus obtaining a second victory for Expedia based on the Helms-Burton Act. In 2025, Expedia was ordered to pay $29.8 million in damages in a similar case, but a judge overturned the decision months later, finding that it had not been proven that the company was aware of or responsible for the actions of the subsidiary that handled the reservations. That case is currently under appeal.
One of the plaintiffs, 66-year-old Maricela Mata, tried to demonstrate that she was an heir to the land using “discolored” documents that indicated the land on which the San Carlos de Cienfuegos hotel, built in 1928, stood belonged to her grandfather, Antonio. Expedia’s lawyer, however, argued that the papers were a commercial registration and not a property title, so there was doubt as to “who owned the land.”
The other plaintiff, 91-year-old Mario Echevarria—who was seeking $10 million—maintains that his family owned Cayo Coco, but he could not provide documentation. “Whose is it? I have no idea. You decide that,” Expedia’s lawyer told the jury.
The New York Times consulted Paolo Spadoni, an economist at Augusta University in Georgia and an expert on Cuban tourism, who warned of the difficulties in these types of lawsuits. “Expedia’s victory highlights the considerable obstacles that Cuban Americans continue to face when filing claims involving property expropriated decades ago,” he noted. The major problem is precisely in being able to establish “that they possess legally recognized property rights to the property in question.”
John Kavulich, an expert with the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, also told the media outlet that events like this should not discourage people seeking to file claims under the Helms-Burton Act. Despite the fact that the setbacks have been frequent, recent court decisions have offered some heirs hope, including Havana Docks Corporation in its case against four major cruise lines. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cuban company Havana Docks, allowing it to reactivate its claim against Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, and MSC for their use between 2016 and 2019 of terminals in the port of Havana, which were confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960.
John Kavulich, an expert with the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, also told the media outlet that incidents like this should not discourage people who aspire to file claims under the Helms-Burton Act.
A month later, the Supreme Court also ruled that Cuban state-owned companies can be sued under the Helms-Burton Act, as it considers that the Act exempts the state from immunity. The decision affected the case of ExxonMobil, which is seeking more than $1 billion, plus interest, for assets confiscated in 1960, including a refinery, oil facilities, and more than 100 service stations.
According to some estimates, certified claims in the US for confiscations amount to at least 6,000 registered and are valued at about $9 billion, the sum of about $1.9 billion original to which an interest of 6% per year must be added.
______________________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.