In recent years, there has been a significant uptick in lawsuits brought by victims of sex trafficking against franchisors and franchisees of hotels where the alleged trafficking occurred. Alleged victims are more frequently seeking to hold these hotels accountable for knowingly or recklessly benefiting from sex trafficking on their properties under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
Under the TVPRA, hotels are facing scrutiny for turning a blind eye to clear signs of sex trafficking and failing to take proactive steps to combat the issue on its property. In 2023, amendments to the TVPRA's civil remedy provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), broadened the language of the act to include any person "knowingly benefits, or attempts or conspires to benefit from participation in a trafficking venture." The 2023 revision to the civil remedy enlarged the class of potential defendants and theories by targeting anyone who knowingly benefits from participation in a trafficking venture, including attempts and conspiracies. This has emboldened plaintiffs to pursue national hotel brands and local operators alike, with more than 40 lawsuits followed in the first year post-amendment.
Factors Determining Liability in Recent TVPRA Cases
Recent verdicts and settlements between victims of sex trafficking and hotel owners are redefining how insurers assess risks associated with sex trafficking on the properties of their hospitality clients. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has provided a list of factors that courts have referenced to determine liability against the hotel industry, which include the following:
- showing signs of malnourishment, poor hygiene, fatigue, sleep deprivation, untreated illness, injuries and/or unusual behavior;
- lack of freedom of movement or is constantly being monitored;
- has no control over or possession of money or identification;
- dressing inappropriately for their age or has lower quality clothing compared to others;
- 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;
- presence of multiple computers, cell phones, pagers, credit card swipers or other technology;
- extended stay with few or no personal possessions;
- excessive amounts of sex paraphernalia in rooms, including condoms, lubricant, lotion, etc.,;
- having the same person reserve multiple rooms;
- rooms being rented hourly, for less than a day, or for a long term stay that does not appear normal;
- individuals selling items to or begging from patrons or staff;
- parking a vehicle backwards so that the license plate is not visible;
- individuals loitering and soliciting male patrons;
- waiting at a table or bar and picked up by a male;
- asking staff or patrons for food or money;
- taking cash or receipts left on tables;
- paying with cash or a preloaded credit card;
- always keeping a “Do Not Disturb” sign on their door; and
- avoiding eye contact and interactions with others.
While decisions as to the liability of hotel operators and employees have been mixed across various courts, a general trend shows an increased expectation that the hotel industry take accountability and enact proactive measures to ensure sex trafficking does not occur on their property, or they will face significant financial and legal consequences. The pivotal question in recent cases around the country continues to be what constitutes "participation in a venture" under the TVPRA.
In general, cases which fail to show specific knowledge or participation of the alleged sex trafficking have generally resulted in dismissal. In Florida, a leading case is Red Roof Inns, where the court ultimately determined that Plaintiff failed to establish a common undertaking or enterprise existed between the franchisors of the hotel and the traffickers. The court ruled that, while the franchisors did receive fees from hotels where trafficking occurred and sent inspectors to the hotels, they did not participate in a business venture, as "observing something is not the same as participating in it." Plaintiff alleged that the franchisors were aware of trafficking through inspections and online reviews, but the court still ruled that these allegations failed to establish a common undertaking or enterprise between the franchisors and the traffickers.
This ruling has been reinforced by the Eleventh Circuit in an unpublished 2024 per curiam decision involving the owner and operator of an American Inn & Suites in Jonesboro, Georgia. In K.H., the court ruled that allegations of financial benefit alone are not sufficient to establish that the defendant participated in a sex trafficking venture. This case also highlighted that the difference between a franchisor and franchisee in TVPRA claims is significant, and that the plaintiff in Red Roof Inns may have had a plausible claim had she chosen to sue the franchisee rather than the franchisor.
On the other hand, allegations in cases such as Ricchio are far stronger and have resulted in denial of dispositive motions. In Ricchio, the trafficker and motel operator (husband and wife) "had prior commercial deadlines… which the parties wished to reinstate for profit." Additional allegations suggested that the motel operator and traffickers exchanged high-fives in the motel's parking lot, spoke about "getting this thing going again," nonchalantly ignored [plaintiff's] pleas for help, and had seen the traffickers grab, kick, and force plaintiff back to her rooms. Under these circumstances, the First Circuit court held it was reasonably inferable that the motel operator and trafficker were working together as a business venture. Here, the overt collaboration between the trafficker and hotel operator, including express statements about resuming business together, and visible abuse ignored by hotel employees, constitute the “something more” courts seek in denying dispositive motions.
Recent Developments
The Eleventh Circuit's March 30, 2026 decision in A.G. v. Northbrook Industries is the most significant recent development in TVPRA cases involving hotel civil beneficiary liability. In A.G., the court emphasized that liability requires more than a passive business relationship between the hotel and the traffickers, requiring "something more" than an ordinary commercial transaction to demonstrate participation in a venture. At the same rate, the court clarified that participation could be established through conduct reflecting active support or facilitation of a sex trafficking operation. Specifically, the record included testimony that hotel staff engaged directly with traffickers, allowed minors access to rooms without verification, and ignored repeated indicators of trafficking activity, including her young age, inappropriate appearance, physical deterioration, poor hygiene, fatigue, sleep deprivation, injuries, and loitering and soliciting male patrons. The Court also rejected the argument that a plaintiff must show that the defendants knew the identities of trafficking victims, but instead indicated that the statutory language only requires that the defendant know that a trafficking violation is occurring on their property.
Another recent decision out of the Middle District of Florida, where the defendant, Wyndham Hotel and Resorts, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss was granted in part. In this case, plaintiff alleged that she was trafficked for commercial sex acts at a Days Inn hotel between August and October 2017. She alleged that she would rent rooms in her name and pay with cash and without identification while her trafficker parked outside. She alleged that, despite her visible distress, bruising, emaciation, and disorientation, the hotel employees continued to rent her rooms. She also claimed that hotel employees observed a continuous flow of adult men entering and exiting her room at all hours, frequent multi-day rentals paid in cash, men arriving for short stays lasting under an hour, refusal of housekeeping, plaintiff being visibly malnourished, bruised, and disoriented, and standing outside in revealing clothing to solicit customers.
Allegations included in the plaintiff's Complaint also include that the Days Inn failed to require, verify, or enforce compliance with its own anti-trafficking training requirements, and that Wyndham was in a unique position to be aware of the use of its franchisees' facilities for illegal conduct. She alleged that Wyndham had actual and constructive knowledge that sex trafficking was occurring at the Days Inn and other similarly branded properties based on prior lawsuits and law enforcement actions, government and industry warning about trafficking in the hospitality industry, and training and awareness materials distributed by the American Hotel & Lodging Association.
The Court ultimately determined that County I under the TVPRA be dismissed with prejudice, and Count II for negligence be dismissed without prejudice. The Court found that the Plaintiff did not allege enough to show under the TVPRA that Wyndham participated in a sex trafficking venture beyond accepting revenue from a franchisee that may have actively been participating in sex trafficking, and doing nothing about it. Furthermore, while it appeared Wyndham had a general awareness of trafficking in the hospitality industry, the claim failed without a showing of some participation in a sex trafficking venture. As seen in prior case law referenced above, the distinction between franchisors and franchisees is likely to weigh heavily in decisions made by Courts in the future, as there is a trend towards holding franchisees more responsible for the daily occurrences on hotel properties.
Landmark Verdicts
While most TVPRA cases involving hotels have ended with confidential settlements, there are a handful of verdicts and public settlements to which we can look as indicators of what's to come in future litigation of these cases across the country.
For example, a landmark jury verdict of $40 million was handed down by a federal court in Georgia in July 2025; $10 million in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages. In this matter, the sex trafficker survivor, "J.G.," alleged that she was trafficked as a minor for 40 days at a United Inn & Suites in Decatur, Georgia. In that case, the jury determined that the hotel staff ignored multiple red flags indicating that sex trafficking was happening on the Property, including frequent bed linen changes, heavy foot traffic in and out of rooms, and a BOLO (Be-On-The-Lookout) alert from law enforcement that identified her as a missing minor.
Another landmark case out of Philadelphia in 2023 resulted in a $24 million settlement to eight minors and victims of sex trafficking who alleged that the Days Inn failed to intervene with their abuse. In this case, there was evidence to suggest that the hotel negligently hired a convicted felon as a security guard, and that he was eventually prosecuted for involvement in the trafficking operation.
Conclusion
Overall, liability exposure for hotels under the TVPRA has expanded, with courts scrutinizing whether franchisors and franchisees “knowingly benefit” from, or “participate in,” trafficking ventures on hotel properties, and whether operators ignore clear indicators of sex trafficking. Additionally, increasing and unprecedented punitive damages are serving as a message to the hotel industry that corporate accountability around sex trafficking is not a recommendation, but a requirement. Increasing damage awards also demonstrate that there is a growing expectation that hotels and motels take on a leadership role in preventing sex trafficking within their hotels.
These verdicts and settlements demonstrate that hotel operators should not rely on inspections or brand standards to defeat accusations of participating in a business venture with sex traffickers. Instead, hotel franchisors and franchisees must consider increasing their anti-trafficking efforts, act on law-enforcement alerts, and become a leader in movement to end sex trafficking in the United States, beginning on their own properties.
_______________________________________
A.B. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 3d 171, 181 (E.D. Pa. 2020).
A.G. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc., 2022 WL 1644921 (N.D. Ga. 2022).
A.G. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc.: Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Limits of TVPRA Liability for Hotel Operators. Buchalter. March 2026.
Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F. 4th 714 (2021).
Green, Jr., Larry C. Ongoing Wave of Civil Lawsuits Targets the Hotel Industry under the TVPRA – What The Hotel Industry Must Know. Nat'l L. Rev. J. 2025.
Human Trafficking and the Hospitality Industry. Homeland Security. August 2024.
K.H. v. Riti, Inc., No. 23-11682, 2024 WL 505063 (11th Cir. Feb. 9, 2024).
Ricchio v. McLean, 853 F.3d 553 (1st Cir. 2017).
