A district court ruling reinforces that international companies facing class actions in Israel need only account for claims by Israeli residents – not global consumers dragged into litigation without their knowledge or consent.

Written by Eyal Doron with S. Horowitz, Israel

In a decision dated April 17, 2026, the Lod District Court (Central District) ruled that a certified class action against Booking.com and Expedia – alleging anticompetitive “price parity clauses” in hotel booking agreements – may proceed only on behalf of Israeli citizens and residents. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s request to include foreign nationals who booked Israeli hotels from abroad, holding that Israeli class action law cannot be applied to individuals who never submitted to Israeli jurisdiction, never authorized the proceedings, and may not even be aware of the lawsuit’s existence.

Background

The underlying case concerns online travel agencies (Booking.com and Expedia) that allegedly imposed broad parity clauses on Israeli hotels, requiring them not to offer better prices or terms through any competing distribution channel. The plaintiff sought to represent a class defined as “anyone who booked a hotel in Israel during the past seven years, excluding group and loyalty-club bookings.” This sweeping definition would have encompassed millions of foreign tourists and business travelers worldwide who booked Israeli accommodation through any channel.

The Legal Question

Can an Israeli plaintiff certify a class action on behalf of foreign nationals – consumers from all over the world – who never chose to litigate in Israel, never consented to Israeli jurisdiction, and may be subject to different legal regimes in their home countries?

The Court’s Analysis

The Court held decisively that the class must be limited to Israeli citizens and residents. Drawing on established precedent from the Tel Aviv Economic Division in Digitek v. Jean Dumont (2017), affirmed on appeal (2019), the Court identified multiple grounds for excluding foreign class members.

First, foreign consumers are effectively dragged into Israeli proceedings without their initiative or knowledge, and the Court imposes Israeli substantive law upon them without their consent. Second, practical obstacles render such inclusion unworkable: notifying class members across all nations of the world, providing meaningful opt-out opportunities, ensuring due process rights, and creating binding res judicata for individuals who may never learn of the proceedings. Third, policy considerations militate against such overreach – including judicial comity, efficient allocation of court resources, and the risk that Israeli law may afford foreign consumers fewer rights than their home jurisdictions.

The Court further noted that Booking.com’s terms of service include a foreign choice-of-law and jurisdiction clause. While such clauses may be deemed unconscionable under Israeli consumer law, there is no certainty that foreign consumers would prefer Israeli proceedings over enforcing those contractual terms in their own jurisdictions.

Reinforcing its conclusion, the Court observed that Israeli courts have consistently held that asserting jurisdiction over foreign defendants (international corporations) is justified primarily to protect Israeli consumers — not to adjudicate claims of consumers worldwide.

Implications

This ruling carries significant practical implications for international companies operating in Israel. Although Israeli district court decisions are not strictly binding precedent, they are persuasive authority that other district courts are likely to follow when confronting similar issues. The decision signals that:

International companies facing Israeli class actions can expect that exposure will be measured against the Israeli consumer base — not a potentially limitless global class. The ruling effectively cabins class action risk to a defined and manageable population, providing greater predictability for multinational businesses assessing their Israeli litigation exposure.

This reasoning may also have a significant impact on airlines. In Israeli class actions against airlines, plaintiffs typically define the class as including all passengers on flights to and from Israel. This decision opens the door for airlines to challenge the inclusion of foreign passengers with no genuine nexus to Israel in class actions litigated before Israeli courts.

For foreign companies doing business in Israel, this decision confirms that while Israeli courts will assert jurisdiction to protect local consumers, they will not become a forum for global collective redress on behalf of consumers who have no connection to the Israeli legal system and have never consented to it.

During the upcoming month of October, the District Court in Tel Aviv is expected to hear, jointly and as part of a special hearing, several cases raising a similar question. Accordingly, toward the end of 2026, an additional decision by a District Court is expected to be issued on this question – well worth following.

Upcoming Events