Title III of the 1996 Helms–Burton Act permits U.S. nationals to sue any party that “traffics” in property confiscated by the Cuban government. After lying dormant for decades under presidential suspensions, Title III was activated in 2019, unleashing dozens of lawsuits (including one against cruise companies). As of Feb 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review key Title III cases, including suits against Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian and MSC. This article from SeaEmploy.com examines the statute, enforcement history, cruise-related cases (like Havana Docks Corp.), and practical guidance for industry compliance.
SeaEmploy readers need clarity on this timely issue. Title III Helms–Burton affects businesses that conduct or support travel to Cuba. For example, if a cruise line docks at a pier in Havana that once belonged to an American owner, Title III might allow that owner to sue for compensation. Similarly, companies that profit from hotels, excursions, or ports on expropriated land face legal risk. We will explain the law’s core provisions, review recent Supreme Court developments (Feb 22, 2026), and outline risk-mitigation steps. The text is optimized for SEO, with concise paragraphs and reliable sources.
Title III Helms–Burton Act: Key Provisions
In March 1996, Congress passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act, commonly known as Helms–Burton. Title III of that law creates a private cause of action for U.S. nationals. Under 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(1), three months after Title III’s enactment, any person who “traffics in property” confiscated by Cuba on or after Jan 1, 1959, is “liable” to the U.S. owner of that property. Trafficking is broadly defined – it can include operating, using, or profiting from such property. Successful plaintiffs may recover the full market value of the confiscated property (plus interest and attorneys’ fees).
Not everyone can sue. Title III limits claims to persons who are U.S. nationals and already held the claim before March 12, 1996. In practice, this means if an American inherited or acquired the claim after that date, Title III relief is generally barred. Courts have enforced this rule strictly. Moreover, Title III was set to take effect automatically, but each U.S. President may suspend its operation for up to six months if deemed “necessary to the national interest”. Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all used this waiver power, until President Trump ended the suspension in 2019.
The net effect: for 23 years Title III had no practical force. But after the Trump Administration let the suspension lapse on May 2, 2019, Title III became active. Approximately 40 lawsuits followed in 2019–2020, targeting foreign companies (often tourism-related) alleged to be “trafficking” in Cuban confiscated property. These suits have slowly navigated through the U.S. courts. In January 2025, President Biden imposed a new suspension on new Title III claims, but in Feb 2026 the Supreme Court agreed to hear Title III issues, ensuring continued uncertainty
Recent Legal Developments and Cruise Lines
The Court granted review in two Title III cases: one by ExxonMobil (seeking damages for oil properties expropriated in 1960) and a separate case by Havana Docks Corp. against four cruise lines (Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, MSC). These are the first Title III cases ever considered by the Supreme Court. The justices will address how far Congress intended to empower Title III, including questions about jurisdiction and defenses. The outcome may reshape the risk landscape for anyone dealing with Cuban assets.
Even before the Supreme Court, lower courts have handled cruise-related suits. In Havana Docks Corp., the company – a U.S. national that formerly managed Havana’s piers – sued Carnival and others, arguing that docking at those piers violated Title III. Carnival’s motion to dismiss was denied, and the trial court eventually ruled in Havana Docks’ favor, awarding over $110 million per defendant. That judgment is on appeal. If upheld, it underscores that cruise ships using Havana’s formerly U.S.-owned docks can be liable under Title III.
Another key case is Gonzalez v. Amazon.com (11th Cir. 2021). There, heirs of Cuban land sued e-commerce and charcoal companies for using their family’s expropriated property. The court held that the plaintiffs could not bring the suit because they acquired their ownership interest after March 12, 1996. This reinforces the “pre-1996” cutoff. Similarly, Bengochea v. Royal Caribbean saw the 11th Circuit dismiss lawsuits against cruise lines for trafficking in coastland, again citing the cutoff rule. In effect, if a Cuban-American’s rights were inherited or assigned post-1996, Title III is a dead end for them.
In short, cruise companies should be aware: active Title III suits exist, but procedural barriers are common. The Supreme Court cases may clarify these issues. For now, industry stakeholders are closely watching developments. Legal analysts (e.g. Arnold & Porter Law) note that the Court could either ease or tighten requirements for Title III cases. A decision is expected later in 2026.
Compliance and Industry Impact
What does all this mean for cruise operators and related businesses? Even paused, Title III influences risk management. Key concerns include:
- Port and Facility Usage: Cruise ships docking at Cuban ports once owned by Americans face Title III exposure. For example, Havana’s cruise piers were central to the Havana Docks case. If a port or marina was on confiscated land, courts may consider docking as “trafficking.” Operators should investigate the history of Cuban ports (State Department resources can help) and consider alternatives or indemnities.
- Excursions and Contracts: Booking tourists on excursions or stays at hotels that sit on expropriated land can trigger suits. Industry guidance suggests vetting all Cuban partners and contracts. Companies should include clauses requiring partners to disclose any U.S. ownership claims on their property.
- Travel Licenses vs. Title III: Note that Title III is separate from OFAC travel rules (e.g. people-to-people licenses). Even if a voyage is legal under OFAC, Title III suits might still target the cruise line for using a confiscated asset. Thus, compliance teams should add Title III considerations to their risk matrix.
- Foreign Countermeasures: U.S. allies (EU, Canada, Mexico, etc.) have nullification laws to block extraterritorial claims under Helms–Burton. Cruise lines operating internationally should be aware of potential legal conflicts in foreign jurisdictions, though this usually does not prevent U.S. suits.
Law firms and industry advisories stress proactive measures. Companies should conduct due diligence on any Cuban real estate or concessions they use. They should consult U.S. counsel on pending Title III litigation and insurance coverage. In communications, avoid marketing that highlights Cuban sites with murky ownership.
