Sex trafficking in the hotel industry has generated an uptick in lawsuits, specifically in the past five years. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)[1] and recent case law identifies which stakeholders in the hotel industry can be held liable for sex trafficking on hotel premises. Recent decisions across various courts have been mixed, with some courts granting summary judgment to hotel defendants and others denying such motions and requiring a trial.
Insight into these recent decisions may help hotels understand what to look for and how to handle human trafficking on their premises.
Who Is Liable Under The TVPRA?
Under current law, liability for sex trafficking in the hotel industry can extend to various parties, including hotel operators, employees, owners, franchisees, and franchisors, depending on their level of knowledge and participation in the trafficking.
For hotel operators and employees, liability arises if they knowingly assist, support, or facilitate sex trafficking activities or act in reckless disregard of such activities occurring on their premises.
Franchisees and franchisors may also face liability, but the standard for holding franchisors accountable is higher. Courts generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate that franchisors had actual or constructive knowledge of trafficking and participated in the venture. General knowledge of trafficking in the hotel industry or the presence of trafficking at other franchisee-operated hotels is typically insufficient to establish liability for franchisors.
What is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)?
In 2000, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), creating criminal offenses for forced labor and sex trafficking. Three years later, Congress passed the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1595, adding a civil right of action for victims of trafficking against their traffickers. In 2008, Congress expanded victims’ remedies to traffickers and those who facilitate trafficking ventures.
Section 1595 of the TVPRA opened the door to liability against facilitators who did not directly traffic a victim, but benefited from what the facilitator should have known was a “trafficking venture.” A.B. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 3d 171, 181 (E.D. Pa. 2020).
The TVPRA provides both criminal and civil penalties for sex trafficking. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591, § 1595. Section 1595(a) creates civil liability for two categories of defendants: (1) those who have themselves committed a criminal offense under § 1591 of the TVPRA (i.e., perpetrator liability), and (2) those who are not themselves subject to criminal liability but who knowingly benefitted from participation in a venture that they knew or should have known was committing an offense under § 1591 of the TVPRA (i.e., beneficiary liability). A.D. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250759 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2020).
Elements Required for a Plaintiff to Prove a Cause of Action Under the TVPRA
A perpetrator claim under § 1595 imports § 1591’s mens rea requirement, which in turn requires actual knowledge of sex trafficking by force or fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (stating mens rea as “knowingly”); Id. at § 1595 (“an individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter”); see, e.g., Noble v. Weinstein, 335 F. Supp. 3d 504, 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); and J.M. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84861 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2023) (collecting cases and noting that “perpetrator liability under § 1595 imputes § 1591’s elements for criminal liability”).
To state a direct beneficiary claim under Section 1595, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant (1) knowingly benefitted (2) “from participation in a venture” (3) that it “knew or should have known it engaged in” trafficking the plaintiff. 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).
Although the TVPRA does not explicitly address the issue of indirect or vicarious liability, under traditional rules of statutory construction, statutes are presumed not to disturb the common law, unless the language of the statute is clear and explicit for this purpose. J.M. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190054 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022); A.B. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 484 F.Supp.3d 921, 939 (D. Or. 2020) (examining “vicarious liability [under the TVPRA] as a question of federal common law”). For example, the Ninth Circuit has applied common law agency principles requiring (1) a manifestation by the principal that the agent shall act for him, (2) that the agent has accepted the undertaking, and (3) that there is an understanding between the parties that the principal is to be in control of the undertaking. See Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 890, 899 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01) (2006)).
The question of whether a franchisor has retained sufficient control in the way the franchisee performs its duties to establish an agency relationship depends entirely on the facts of each individual case, including the extent of the control as defined by the franchise agreement, and the actual practice of the parties. Doe v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229076 (D.N.J. 2023). “While a franchisor-franchisee relationship does not necessarily create an agency relationship . . . a franchisor may be held liable for a franchisee's actions if the franchisor controls the franchisee's day-to-day operations.” J.M. v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190054 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022).
“Red Flags” of Sex Trafficking That Are Considered by Courts
There are many ways to identify whether an individual is a victim of human trafficking, specifically within the hotel industry. Courts will consider the following factors when determining liability against the hotel industry, including a suspected victim:
(1) showing signs of malnourishment, poor hygiene, fatigue, sleep deprivation, untreated illness, injuries and/or unusual behavior; (2) lack of freedom of movement or is constantly being monitored; (3) has no control over or possession of money or identification; (4) dressing inappropriately for their age or has lower quality clothing compared to others; (5) requests room or housekeeping services, including additional towels, new linens, etc., but denies hotel/motel staff entry into the room, or in the alternative, refuses cleaning services for multiple days; (6) presence of multiple computers, cell phones, pagers, credit card swipers or other technology; (7) extended stay with few or no personal possessions; (8) excessive amounts of sex paraphernalia in rooms, including condoms, lubricant, lotion, etc.,; (9) having the same person reserve multiple rooms; (10) rooms being rented hourly, for less than a day, or for a long term stay that does not appear normal; (11) individuals selling items to or begging from patrons or staff; (12) parking a vehicle backwards so that the license plate is not visible; (13) individuals loitering and soliciting male patrons; (14) waiting at a table or bar and picked up by a male; (15) asking staff or patrons for food or money; (16) taking cash or receipts left on tables; (17) paying with cash or a preloaded credit card; (18) always keeping a “Do Not Disturb” sign on their door; and (19) avoiding eye contact and interactions with others.[2]
Recent Case Law Interpreting the TVPRA
In Doe v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 24-8174 (SDW) (JBC), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76129 (D.N.J. April 21, 2025), Doe alleged she was sex trafficked at a Hawthorn Suites Hotel and claimed there were numerous “red flags” of trafficking visible to hotel staff, including excess condoms, frequent male visitors at odd hours, and the refusal of housekeeping. The Court determined that Doe’s allegations of clear trafficking signs observed by the hotel staff, combined with the failure to investigate or intervene, supported an inference that the defendants knew of or recklessly disregarded the trafficking and denied both defendants’ motions to dismiss.
In Doe M.J.J. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 24-6490 (SDW) (JRA), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16608 (D.N.J. January 30, 2025), Doe alleged that she was sex trafficked at two Wyndham Hotels and claimed there were obvious signs of sex trafficking visible to hotel staff, including cash payments, heavy foot traffic, and use of “Do Not Disturb” signs. The Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that Doe adequately pleaded she was a victim of sex trafficking, and sufficiently alleged beneficiary, perpetrator, and vicarious liability.
In E.B. v. Howard Johnson by Wyndham Newark Airport, Civil Action No. 21-2901 (JXN) (JRA), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231401 (D.N.J. December 29, 2023), E.B. alleged she was a victim of sex trafficking at several hotels and claimed that the hotels knew or should have known she was being trafficked based on signs like rooms paid for in cash, used condoms, and a steady stream of male visitors. The Court held that E.B. sufficiently alleged that the defendants participated in a venture that benefitted from sex trafficking, and knew or should have known sex trafficking was occurring. Additionally, the court held against WHRI, finding it had an agency relationship that made it vicariously liable for the actions of its subsidiary.
In other cases, however, courts have held that a plaintiff failed to establish the requisite actual or constructive knowledge to establish liability where the alleged “red flags” were held to be insufficient to put hotel defendants on notice of sex trafficking.
In S.J. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 3d 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), S.J. alleged she was trafficked for commercial sex at Econo Lodge and Howard Johnson Inn and that hotel staff witnessed signs of sex trafficking but failed to prevent it. The Court there held that franchisors could not be directly liable under the TVPRA without specific knowledge of a specific sex trafficking venture, and that general awareness of the problem is insufficient. In addition, the Court held that constructive knowledge did not satisfy the mens rea requirement and that the franchisors did not exercise sufficient control over the franchisees to establish vicarious liability under agency law. However, the Court held that the harm was foreseeable, and therefore the franchisors owed a duty of care under common law negligence to take reasonable steps to prevent sex trafficking from occurring on the hotel premises. While the franchisors’ motions to dismiss the TVPRA claims were granted, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the negligence claim.
Given the evolving landscape of case law under the TVPRA, hotels and related entities should take proactive steps to minimize potential exposure. Ongoing employee training and implementing clear reporting and compliance procedures are essential to demonstrating due diligence and a continued commitment to preventing human trafficking within the hospitality industry.
[2] Human Trafficking and The Hospitality Industry | U.S. Department of Homeland Security
About O’Toole Scrivo, LLC
We are a carefully crafted mid-sized law firm of recognized subject matter experts practicing primarily in New York and New Jersey. We combine large-firm expertise with small-firm attention to client needs, representing businesses, insurance companies, and government entities. We are committed to delivering creative and timely results for the most high-profile and complex matters.
