By: Eyal Doron, S. Horowitz & Co.
In our commitment to sharing valuable international perspectives, we are pleased to feature the following Global Insights article from our recent Israel Market Newsletter.
A recent district court ruling confirms that companies facing class actions in Israel generally need only address claims by Israeli citizens and residents, not foreign consumers with no meaningful connection to the Israeli legal system.
In a decision dated April 17, 2026, the Lod District Court (Central District) held that a certified class action against Booking.com and Expedia—concerning alleged anticompetitive “price parity clauses” in hotel booking agreements—may proceed only on behalf of Israeli citizens and residents. The Court rejected the request to include foreign nationals who booked Israeli hotels from abroad, reasoning that Israeli class action law should not be applied to individuals who never submitted to Israeli jurisdiction, never authorized the proceedings, and may not even know the lawsuit exists.
Background
The case concerns allegations that Booking.com and Expedia required Israeli hotels not to offer better prices or terms through competing channels. The plaintiff sought to represent anyone who booked a hotel in Israel during the past seven years, excluding group and loyalty-club bookings—a definition broad enough to include millions of foreign travelers worldwide.
The Legal Question
The central issue was whether an Israeli plaintiff may bring a class action on behalf of foreign consumers who never chose to litigate in Israel, never consented to Israeli jurisdiction, and may be governed by different legal regimes.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court held that the class must be limited to Israeli citizens and residents, relying on Digitek v. Jean Dumont. It emphasized that foreign consumers would otherwise be drawn into Israeli proceedings without their knowledge or consent, while being subjected to Israeli substantive law.
The Court also pointed to practical and policy concerns, including the difficulty of notifying foreign class members, ensuring meaningful opt-out rights and due process, and creating binding res judicata. It further noted concerns of judicial comity, efficient use of resources, and the possibility that foreign consumers may enjoy stronger protections in their home jurisdictions.
The Court additionally noted that Booking.com’s terms of service contain foreign choice-of-law and jurisdiction provisions. Even if such clauses might be challenged under Israeli consumer law, it is not clear that foreign consumers would prefer Israeli proceedings over remedies in their own countries.
The decision reinforces a broader principle in Israeli case law: jurisdiction over foreign companies is asserted mainly to protect Israeli consumers, not to turn Israeli courts into a forum for global consumer claims.
Implications
For international companies operating in Israel, the ruling suggests that class action exposure will generally be limited to the Israeli consumer base rather than an open-ended global class, improving predictability and reducing litigation uncertainty.
Similar cases are expected to be heard by the Tel Aviv District Court in October, and another decision on this issue may be issued before the end of 2026.
Given the decision’s significant implications, including its potential effect on the economic viability of filing class actions, it would not be surprising if the issue reaches the Supreme Court for determination during 2027.
Eyal Doron is a senior partner and co-head of the International Disputes Team at S. Horowitz & Co., a full-service law firm and one of Israel’s largest law firms.
Eyal Doron
Senior Partner, International Disputes and Aviation Law
[email protected]