COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Competition Reviews In July 2012, the Office of Fair Trading (the "OFT"), the predecessor competition authority in the United Kingdom to the Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA"), issued a "Statement of Objections" ("SO") to Booking.com, which alleged, among other things, that there were agreements or concerted practices between hotels and Booking.com and between hotels and at least one other online travel company ("OTC") that restricted Booking.com's (and the other OTC's) ability to discount hotel room reservations and that this was a form of resale price maintenance. Although we dispute the allegations in the SO, on January 31, 2014, the OFT announced that it had accepted commitments offered by Booking.com, as well as by Expedia and Intercontinental Hotel Group, (the "Commitments") to close the investigation on the basis that they address the OFT's competition concerns and with no finding of infringement or admission of wrongdoing by Booking.com and no imposition of a fine. The Commitments provide, among other things, that hotels will continue to be able to set retail prices for hotel room reservations on all OTC websites, such as Booking.com, but that OTCs have the flexibility to discount a hotel's retail price up to the OTC's commission, but only to members of closed groups, a concept that is defined in the Commitments, who have previously made a reservation through the OTC. In addition, the Commitments provide that Booking.com will not require rate parity from hotels in relation to discounted rates that are provided by other OTCs or hotels to members of their closed groups, provided the discounted rate is not made public. The Commitments apply to bookings by European Economic Area residents at U.K. hotels. On March 31, 2014, Skyscanner, a meta-search site based in the United Kingdom, filed an appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") against the OFT's decision to accept the Commitments. In its decision dated September 26, 2014, the CAT found that the CMA was wrong to reject Skyscanner's arguments about the negative impact of the Commitments on its business and price transparency generally without properly exploring these arguments. The CAT's decision vacates the CMA's Commitments decision and remits the matter to the CMA for reconsideration in accordance with the CAT's ruling. The CMA did not appeal the CAT's decision, and it is uncertain what action the CMA will take in response to the CAT's ruling, which could involve re-opening, closing or suspending the investigation. Investigations have also been opened by the national competition authorities in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland that focus on Booking.com's rate parity clause in its contracts with accommodation providers in those jurisdictions. Competition related inquiries have also been received from the competition authority in China. On December 15, 2014, the French, Italian and Swedish national competition authorities ("NCAs"), working in close cooperation with the European Commission, announced their intention to seek public feedback on commitments offered by Booking.com in connection with investigations of Booking.com's rate parity provisions in its contractual arrangements with accommodation providers. The public comment period expired at the end of January 2015. On April 21, 2015, the French, Italian and Swedish NCAs announced that they had accepted revised commitments offered by Booking.com. Under the revised commitments, Booking.com will replace its existing price parity agreements with accommodation providers with "narrow" price parity agreements. Under the "narrow" price parity agreement, subject to certain exceptions, an accommodation provider will still be required to offer the same or better rates on Booking.com as it offers to a consumer directly, but it will no longer be required to offer the same or better rates on Booking.com as it offers to other on-line travel companies. The revised commitments will also allow an accommodation provider to, among other things, offer different terms and conditions (e.g., free WiFi) and availability to consumers that book with on-line travel companies that offer lower rates of commission or other benefits, offer lower rates to consumers that book through off-line channels and continue to discount through, among other things, accommodation loyalty programs, as long as those rates are not published or marketed online. The revised commitments apply to accommodations in France, Italy and Sweden. The foregoing description is a summary only and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the commitments published by the NCAs on April 21, 2015. The Company is in ongoing discussions with the relevant regulatory authorities regarding their concerns. Booking.com intends to implement these commitments throughout the European Economic Area and is working with certain other European NCAs towards this objective. However, the Company is currently unable to predict the impact the commitments in France, Italy and Sweden will have on its business or on the on-going investigations in other European countries, in particular in Germany where competition authorities have alleged that any parity requirements, "narrow" or otherwise, are anti-competitive. Further, the Company is unable to predict how the investigations in the other countries will be resolved. To the extent that regulatory authorities impose fines on the Company or require changes to the Company's business practices or to those currently common to the industry, the Company's business, competitive position and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Negative publicity regarding any such investigations could adversely affect the Company's brands and therefore its market share and results of operations. Litigation Related to Travel Transaction Taxes The Company and certain third-party OTCs are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.). The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases. Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. The complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes. Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and, therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel services. In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" - essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars - a claim that the Company believes is without basis and has vigorously contested. The taxing jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely continue to do so. From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid. In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial proceedings. This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to play" or "pay first." For example, the City and County of San Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the Company paid in January 2013. Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to such taxes. In the San Francisco action, for example, the court ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not owe transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city to refund the amount paid in July 2009; the Company also is seeking a refund of the amount paid in January 2013. San Francisco has appealed the court's ruling and has not refunded the amount paid in July 2009 pending resolution of the appeal. The matter has been stayed while the appeal in another case with the City of San Diego is pending before the California Supreme Court. Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings. For example, in September 2012, the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which the Company is appealing. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September 2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations Tax. In July 2014, the Company resolved all claims in this case through settlement and the claims against the Company were dismissed on September 3, 2014. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes final. In a mixed decision, on March 17, 2015 the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii holding that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's transient accommodations tax and upheld, in part, the Tax Court's ruling that the OTCs, including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax ("GET") on the margin and fee retained by an OTC as compensation in a transaction. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Tax Court's decision that had held that OTCs are liable for GET on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room reservation, not just margin and fee, without any offset for amounts passed through to the hotel. The Company had recorded an accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to the Tax Court ruling. Also, during the year ended December 31, 2014 and three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company had paid approximately $2.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively, to the State of Hawaii related to the Tax Court ruling. The March 2015 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court significantly reduced the Company's (and other OTCs') liability under the GET statute since GET tax is now owed only on the Company's margin and fee, not the gross amount charged to a customer in a transaction. As a result, the Company reduced its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties) by $16.4 million with a corresponding reduction to cost of revenues. In addition, the Company will seek a refund of approximately $20 million paid to date in excess of its actual liability. The Company will record a reduction in cost of revenues for the taxes refunded by the State of Hawaii in the periods in which the cash refunds are received. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. There have been, and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the Company's position in pending and any future cases or proceedings. An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flow in any given operating period. However, the Company believes that even if it were to suffer adverse determinations in the near term in more of the pending proceedings than currently anticipated, given results to date it would not have a material impact on the Company's liquidity because of the Company's available cash. To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that the Company's services are subject to travel transaction taxes and that the Company has a tax collection responsibility for those taxes, or the Company determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of increasing the cost of travel reservations to its customers and, consequently, could make the Company's travel reservation services less competitive (as compared to the services of other OTCs or travel service providers) and reduce the Company's travel reservation transactions; alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce the compensation for its services. Either action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations. In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date, the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are claimed to be owed on the Company's gross profit, but also, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. Therefore, any liability associated with travel transaction tax matters is not constrained to the Company's liability for tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may also include, among other things, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. To date, the majority of the taxing jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates hotel reservations have not asserted that these taxes are due and payable. With respect to taxing jurisdictions that have not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that they will do so in the future or that they will seek to amend their tax statutes and seek to collect taxes from the Company only on a prospective basis. Accrual for Travel Transaction Taxes As a result of this litigation and other attempts by jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, the Company has established an accrual (including estimated interest and penalties) for the potential resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes in the amount of approximately $35 million at March 31, 2015 and $52 million at December 31, 2014. The March 2015 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court significantly reduced the Company's (and other OTCs') liability and as a result the Company reduced its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties) by $16.4 million with a corresponding reduction to cost of revenues. The Company's legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made. Patent Infringement On February 9, 2015, International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against The Priceline Group Inc. and its subsidiaries KAYAK Software Corporation, OpenTable, Inc. and priceline.com LLC (the "Subject Companies"). In the complaint, IBM alleges that the Subject Companies have infringed and continue to willfully infringe certain IBM patents that IBM claims relate to the presentation of applications and advertising in an interactive service, preserving state information in online transactions and single sign-on processes in a computing environment and seeks unspecified damages (including a request that the amount of compensatory damages be trebled), injunctive relief and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to contest them vigorously. Other The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all of the proceedings described in this Note 12. The Company has accrued for certain legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or cash flows. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made. From time to time, the Company has been, and expects to continue to be, subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third party intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources, divert management's attention from the Company's business objectives and adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Contingent Consideration for Business Acquisitions As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company recognized a liability of approximately $20 million and $11 million, respectively, for estimated contingent payments related to acquisitions. The estimated contingent payments are based upon the probability weighted-average payments for specific performance factors from the acquisition dates through the performance periods which end at December 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019. The range of undiscounted outcomes for the estimated contingent payments is approximately $0 to $161 million.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Competition Reviews

In July 2012, the Office of Fair Trading (the "OFT"), the predecessor competition authority in the United Kingdom to the Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA"), issued a "Statement of Objections" ("SO") to Booking.com, which alleged, among other things, that there were agreements or concerted practices between hotels and Booking.com and between hotels and at least one other online travel company ("OTC") that restricted Booking.com's (and the other OTC's) ability to discount hotel room reservations and that this was a form of resale price maintenance. Although we dispute the allegations in the SO, on January 31, 2014, the OFT announced that it had accepted commitments offered by Booking.com, as well as by Expedia and Intercontinental Hotel Group, (the "Commitments") to close the investigation on the basis that they address the OFT's competition concerns and with no finding of infringement or admission of wrongdoing by Booking.com and no imposition of a fine. The Commitments provide, among other things, that hotels will continue to be able to set retail prices for hotel room reservations on all OTC websites, such as Booking.com, but that OTCs have the flexibility to discount a hotel's retail price up to the OTC's commission, but only to members of closed groups, a concept that is defined in the Commitments, who have previously made a reservation through the OTC. In addition, the Commitments provide that Booking.com will not require rate parity from hotels in relation to discounted rates that are provided by other OTCs or hotels to members of their closed groups, provided the discounted rate is not made public. The Commitments apply to bookings by European Economic Area residents at U.K. hotels. On March 31, 2014, Skyscanner, a meta-search site based in the United Kingdom, filed an appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") against the OFT's decision to accept the Commitments. In its decision dated September 26, 2014, the CAT found that the CMA was wrong to reject Skyscanner's arguments about the negative impact of the Commitments on its business and price transparency generally without properly exploring these arguments. The CAT's decision vacates the CMA's Commitments decision and remits the matter to the CMA for reconsideration in accordance with the CAT's ruling. The CMA did not appeal the CAT's decision, and it is uncertain what action the CMA will take in response to the CAT's ruling, which could involve re-opening, closing or suspending the investigation.

Investigations have also been opened by the national competition authorities in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland that focus on Booking.com's rate parity clause in its contracts with accommodation providers in those jurisdictions. Competition related inquiries have also been received from the competition authority in China.

On December 15, 2014, the French, Italian and Swedish national competition authorities ("NCAs"), working in close cooperation with the European Commission, announced their intention to seek public feedback on commitments offered by Booking.com in connection with investigations of Booking.com's rate parity provisions in its contractual arrangements with accommodation providers. The public comment period expired at the end of January 2015. On April 21, 2015, the French, Italian and Swedish NCAs announced that they had accepted revised commitments offered by Booking.com. Under the revised commitments, Booking.com will replace its existing price parity agreements with accommodation providers with "narrow" price parity agreements. Under the "narrow" price parity agreement, subject to certain exceptions, an accommodation provider will still be required to offer the same or better rates on Booking.com as it offers to a consumer directly, but it will no longer be required to offer the same or better rates on Booking.com as it offers to other on-line travel companies. The revised commitments will also allow an accommodation provider to, among other things, offer different terms and conditions (e.g., free WiFi) and availability to consumers that book with on-line travel companies that offer lower rates of commission or other benefits, offer lower rates to consumers that book through off-line channels and continue to discount through, among other things, accommodation loyalty programs, as long as those rates are not published or marketed online. The revised commitments apply to accommodations in France, Italy and Sweden. The foregoing description is a summary only and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the commitments published by the NCAs on April 21, 2015.

The Company is in ongoing discussions with the relevant regulatory authorities regarding their concerns. Booking.com intends to implement these commitments throughout the European Economic Area and is working with certain other European NCAs towards this objective. However, the Company is currently unable to predict the impact the commitments in France, Italy and Sweden will have on its business or on the on-going investigations in other European countries, in particular in Germany where competition authorities have alleged that any parity requirements, "narrow" or otherwise, are anti-competitive. Further, the Company is unable to predict how the investigations in the other countries will be resolved.

To the extent that regulatory authorities impose fines on the Company or require changes to the Company's business practices or to those currently common to the industry, the Company's business, competitive position and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Negative publicity regarding any such investigations could adversely affect the Company's brands and therefore its market share and results of operations.

Litigation Related to Travel Transaction Taxes

The Company and certain third-party OTCs are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.). The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases. Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. The complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes. Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and, therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel services. In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" - essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars - a claim that the Company believes is without basis and has vigorously contested. The taxing jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely continue to do so. From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial proceedings. This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to play" or "pay first." For example, the City and County of San Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the Company paid in January 2013. Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to such taxes. In the San Francisco action, for example, the court ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not owe transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city to refund the amount paid in July 2009; the Company also is seeking a refund of the amount paid in January 2013. San Francisco has appealed the court's ruling and has not refunded the amount paid in July 2009 pending resolution of the appeal. The matter has been stayed while the appeal in another case with the City of San Diego is pending before the California Supreme Court.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings. For example, in September 2012, the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which the Company is appealing. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September 2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations Tax. In July 2014, the Company resolved all claims in this case through settlement and the claims against the Company were dismissed on September 3, 2014. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes final.

In a mixed decision, on March 17, 2015 the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii holding that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's transient accommodations tax and upheld, in part, the Tax Court's ruling that the OTCs, including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax ("GET") on the margin and fee retained by an OTC as compensation in a transaction. The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Tax Court's decision that had held that OTCs are liable for GET on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room reservation, not just margin and fee, without any offset for amounts passed through to the hotel. The Company had recorded an accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to the Tax Court ruling. Also, during the year ended December 31, 2014 and three months ended March 31, 2015, the Company had paid approximately $2.2 million and $0.6 million, respectively, to the State of Hawaii related to the Tax Court ruling. The March 2015 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court significantly reduced the Company's (and other OTCs') liability under the GET statute since GET tax is now owed only on the Company's margin and fee, not the gross amount charged to a customer in a transaction. As a result, the Company reduced its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties) by $16.4 million with a corresponding reduction to cost of revenues. In addition, the Company will seek a refund of approximately $20 million paid to date in excess of its actual liability. The Company will record a reduction in cost of revenues for the taxes refunded by the State of Hawaii in the periods in which the cash refunds are received.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. There have been, and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the Company's position in pending and any future cases or proceedings. An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flow in any given operating period. However, the Company believes that even if it were to suffer adverse determinations in the near term in more of the pending proceedings than currently anticipated, given results to date it would not have a material impact on the Company's liquidity because of the Company's available cash.

To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that the Company's services are subject to travel transaction taxes and that the Company has a tax collection responsibility for those taxes, or the Company determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of increasing the cost of travel reservations to its customers and, consequently, could make the Company's travel reservation services less competitive (as compared to the services of other OTCs or travel service providers) and reduce the Company's travel reservation transactions; alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce the compensation for its services. Either action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations.

In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date, the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are claimed to be owed on the Company's gross profit, but also, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. Therefore, any liability associated with travel transaction tax matters is not constrained to the Company's liability for tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may also include, among other things, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. To date, the majority of the taxing jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates hotel reservations have not asserted that these taxes are due and payable. With respect to taxing jurisdictions that have not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that they will do so in the future or that they will seek to amend their tax statutes and seek to collect taxes from the Company only on a prospective basis.

Accrual for Travel Transaction Taxes

As a result of this litigation and other attempts by jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, the Company has established an accrual (including estimated interest and penalties) for the potential resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes in the amount of approximately $35 million at March 31, 2015 and $52 million at December 31, 2014. The March 2015 ruling by the Hawaii Supreme Court significantly reduced the Company's (and other OTCs') liability and as a result the Company reduced its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties) by $16.4 million with a corresponding reduction to cost of revenues. The Company's legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made.

Patent Infringement

On February 9, 2015, International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against The Priceline Group Inc. and its subsidiaries KAYAK Software Corporation, OpenTable, Inc. and priceline.com LLC (the "Subject Companies"). In the complaint, IBM alleges that the Subject Companies have infringed and continue to willfully infringe certain IBM patents that IBM claims relate to the presentation of applications and advertising in an interactive service, preserving state information in online transactions and single sign-on processes in a computing environment and seeks unspecified damages (including a request that the amount of compensatory damages be trebled), injunctive relief and costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to contest them vigorously.

Other

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all of the proceedings described in this Note 12. The Company has accrued for certain legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or cash flows. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made.

From time to time, the Company has been, and expects to continue to be, subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third party intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources, divert management's attention from the Company's business objectives and adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Contingent Consideration for Business Acquisitions

As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company recognized a liability of approximately $20 million and $11 million, respectively, for estimated contingent payments related to acquisitions. The estimated contingent payments are based upon the probability weighted-average payments for specific performance factors from the acquisition dates through the performance periods which end at December 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019. The range of undiscounted outcomes for the estimated contingent payments is approximately $0 to $161 million.