Related videos:
The historic victory that had filled the Cuban-American community with hope last April ended in disappointment this Friday when a federal court in Miami overturned the verdict that ordered Expedia to pay $29.8 million to the plaintiff Mario Echevarría for “trafficking” in properties confiscated in Cuba.
According to documents cited by the specialized portal Cubatrade, Judge Federico Moreno decided to overturn the jury’s verdict, considering that although the process was solid and had “great lawyers on both sides,” the company complied with the law by halting hotel reservations on the disputed land within the legal timeframe of 30 days.
“Perhaps now we better understand why presidents from both parties suspended the implementation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act for decades,” wrote the magistrate, who acknowledged that the final decision might be reviewed by a higher authority.
An unexpected turn following the victory in April
In April, a federal jury set a historic precedent by ruling in favor of Echevarría, a naturalized Cuban American who claimed land in Cayo Coco that was expropriated from his family in 1959.
Expedia and its subsidiaries, Hotels.com and Orbitz, were ordered to pay nearly 30 million dollars for offering reservations at hotels built on those lands, such as Iberostar Mojito, Iberostar Colonial, and Pullman Cayo Coco.
The ruling was celebrated as “a great victory for the Cuban-American community” by the law firm Rivero & Mestre, which handled the defense and emphasized the right of exiles to reclaim properties seized by Fidel Castro's regime.
However, the annulment of the verdict is a cold shower for the descendants of Cubans whose lands and businesses were expropriated without compensation. For many, Echevarría's case represented not only economic redress but also an act of justice in the face of decades of dispossession and silence.
Now, the precedent is called into question and raises uncertainties about the future of dozens of similar claims that have been filed since President Donald Trump activated Title III of the Helms-Burton Act in 2019, which had been suspended for over two decades due to fears of diplomatic tensions.
A battle that is not yet over
Although Expedia is currently exempt from paying the hefty compensation, the judge made it clear that the final decision could rest with the Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, the case confirms the political and legal complexity of applying the Helms-Burton, in an arena where the expectations for justice from the Cuban diaspora, the interests of large corporations, and the historical tensions between Washington and Havana intersect.
For Mario Echevarría and other claimants, the setback does not erase their conviction that their rights were violated. However, it does present a significant obstacle in the fight to uphold the law that many consider their last tool against dispossession.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Expedia Case and the Helms-Burton Act
Why was the verdict against Expedia canceled in the lawsuit regarding properties in Cuba?
The Miami court overturned the verdict because Expedia complied with the law by halting hotel bookings on the disputed land within the legal timeframe of 30 days. Although the process was sound and both sides had good lawyers, the judge determined that the company acted in accordance with the legislation. This decision leaves open the possibility for the ruling to be reviewed in a higher court.
What is Title III of the Helms-Burton Act and how does it affect cases like that of Expedia?
The Title III of the Helms-Burton Act allows U.S. citizens to sue entities that traffic in properties confiscated by the Cuban regime since 1959. This law, activated in 2019, aims to provide a mechanism for Cuban-Americans to claim compensation for expropriated properties. However, its implementation has generated diplomatic tensions and legal complexities, as evidenced in the case of Expedia.
What impact does the overturning of the verdict have on other similar cases in the United States?
The annulment of the verdict creates uncertainty about the future of other similar claims filed under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. This could discourage other claimants seeking justice for similar expropriations, although the case may still be reviewed by an appeals court, leaving the door open for future legal developments.
What does this ruling represent for the Cuban American community in terms of justice and restitution?
The ruling represents a significant setback for the Cuban-American community, which viewed Echevarría's case as an opportunity for justice and financial restitution. For many, it was not just a financial issue, but an act of justice in the face of decades of expropriation and silence. The annulment casts doubt on the precedent that had been established in April.
Filed under: