Project Q by Hilton litigation history

The franchisor

Pending (1)

• AAAA Property Partners LLC v. Hilton Franchise Holding LLC

  pending

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-01-24 · Orange County, Florida; removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · 6:25-cv-00132-CEM-RMN (state filing No. 215324302)

  “On January 24, 2025, the plaintiff filed suit against our Hilton Franchise Holding, LLC in Orange County, Florida (Filing No. 215324302) alleging breach of contract arising in connection with our termination of plaintiff’s franchise for the Hilton Garden Inn Orlando I-4 Millenia Blvd. Mall.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Plaintiff has not served this suit on us. If plaintiff serves this suit, we intend to vigorously defend our interests in this matter.”

Concluded (2)

• Hilton Franchise Holding LLC v. Portland Hotel Ownership, et al.

  settled

  Brought against a franchisee · filed 2020-09-17 · Fairfax County Circuit Court · 2020-14233

  “On September 17, 2020, we filed suit against Portland Hotel Ownership, LLC, a former franchisee of a Curio brand hotel, for breach of contract arising from the early termination of the franchise agreement.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On July 28, 2022, the parties settled this case by agreeing to dismiss all claims and exchange general releases.”

• San Pedro Inn, LP v. Hilton Franchise Holding LLC

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-08-28 · Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division General Equity Part, Union County · UNN-C- 121 19

  “On August 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging wrongful termination under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Plaintiff claimed that we imposed unreasonable Quality Assurance standards and that an inspection was hindered by plaintiff’s former employee.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The parties settled the case on September 25, 2020. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims, exchange general releases, and terminate the franchise on April 28, 2021 without the payment of any termination damages or litigation costs by either party.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (4)

• Hanson Dai v. SAS Institute Inc. (consolidated with Steven Shattuck v. SAS Institute Inc.)

  pending

  Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (“Hilton Worldwide”) · filed 2024-04-26 · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · 4:24-cv-02537 (originally 4:24-cv-02527; Shattuck 4:24-cv-03424)

  “On April 26, 2024, a putative class action complaint captioned Dai v. SAS Institute Inc., Civil Case No. 4:24-cv-02527, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Integrated Decisions and Systems, Inc. and SAS Institute, Inc. (together, “IDeaS”) and several hotel defendants, including Hilton Worldwide”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

• In re Extended Stay Hotel Antitrust Litigation (originally Au v. Integrated Decisions and Systems, Inc.; consolidated with Gonzalez v. Integrated Decisions and Systems, Inc.)

  pending

  Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. (“Hilton Worldwide”) · filed 2024-07-24 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; transferred to the Northern District of California · 4:24-civil-09060 (originally 1:24-civil-06324)

  “On July 24, 2024, a putative class action complaint captioned Au v. Integrated Decisions and Systems, Inc., Civil Case No. 1:24-civil-06324, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against IDeaS, and several hotel defendants, including Hilton Worldwide, asserting alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

• Jeanette Portillo, et. al. v. CoStar Group, Inc., et. al.

  pending

  Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. · filed 2024-02-20 · United States District Court for the Western District of Washington · 2:24-cv-00229

  “On February 20, 2024, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the CoStar Group, Inc. and its subsidiary STR, Inc., together with several hotel companies including Hilton Worldwide. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Sherman Act by exchanging competitive data through Smith Travel Research (STR)”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

• Ryan Segal v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., et. al.

  pending

  Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.; Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. substituted as defendant on March 25, 2024 · filed 2024-03-01 · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 1:24-civil-01783

  “On March 1, 2024, plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus Hospitality Americas, Inc., and several hotel companies including Hilton Worldwide.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On March 31, 2025, the Court granted the hotel defendants' motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff failed to allege viable antitrust claims based on information sharing. On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a third Amended Complaint to modify the antitrust claims.” (page 21)

Concluded (4)

• State of Texas v. Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. (“Hilton”) · filed 2023-05-23 · District Court of Collin County, Texas · CAUSE NO. 296-02595-2023

  “On May 23, 2023, the plaintiff filed suit against Hilton alleging the violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in relation to how mandatory guest fees are disclosed to consumers.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In January 2025, the parties settled the case. Without admitting any fault, Hilton agreed to pay Texas $2.1 million and to disclose, display, and sort guest rooms by their total cost on its hotel reservation websites”

• State of Nebraska v. Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc.

  settled

  Government or regulatory action · Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. (“Hilton”) · filed 2019-07-23 · District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska · D02CI190002366

  “On July 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed suit against Hilton alleging the violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act in relation to how mandatory guest fees are disclosed to consumers.”Page 21 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “In February 2024, without admitting any fault, Hilton entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and agreed to pay $300,000 and clearly disclose all mandatory fees and the total price for a booking.” (page 22)

• Kathleen Soule v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1-50

  settled

  Hilton Worldwide, Inc. (“HWI”) - a former name of Park Hotels & Resorts Inc., a FORMER parent company · filed 2013-10-17 · Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii · Civil No. 13-1-2790-10-KKS

  “On October 17, 2013, Kathleen Soule, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), filed a civil class action complaint against HWI, alleging that failure to disclose at the time a reservation was made that a resort fee was mandatory was a violation of Hawaii’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.”Page 22 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Under the settlement, HWI agreed to pay $178,000 and issue $20 vouchers or gift cards to each affected customer for each night of their covered hotel stays.”

• U.S. v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al.

  judgment

  Government or regulatory action · Hilton Hotels Corporation (“HHC”) - a former name of Park Hotels & Resorts Inc., a FORMER parent company · filed 1970 · United States District Court, District of Oregon · 70-310

  “On or about May 12, 1970, the United States filed a civil complaint against HHC (among other defendants), alleging the violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act consisting of engaging in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade by giving preferential treatment to hotel suppliers paying assessments to the Greater Portland Convention Association”Page 23 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On or about November 29, 1971, pursuant to a stipulation filed October 26, 1971, the court entered a final judgment against HHC enjoining and restraining it from engaging in any agreement, understanding, combination, conspiracy or concert of action to give or promise to give preferential treatment in purchasing hotel supplies to any hotel suppliers”