July 03, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
July 3, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge David Estudillo of the Western District of Washington dismissed, with leave to amend, a Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) claim against G6 Hospitality Property LLC, the franchisor affiliated with the Motel 6 brand. The plaintiff alleges she was trafficked at a Motel 6 in Tacoma, Washington between 2017 and 2020, and claims the franchisor knew or should have known of the trafficking because hotel staff allegedly observed trafficking “red flags.” G6 disputes those allegations. The court held that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the franchisor had the required knowledge, failed to allege franchisor participation in a trafficking venture, and failed to plausibly allege any agency relationship between the franchisor and the local hotel. The ruling reflects the increasing judicial insistence that plaintiffs “connect the dots” between a franchisor and alleged room-level misconduct—an analysis expressly grounded in the allegations and procedural posture of this case.
Relevant Background
According to the plaintiff’s allegations, she was trafficked for commercial sex acts at a Tacoma Motel 6 and interacted with hotel staff who allegedly observed visible bruising, impaired behavior, suspicious items, and frequent foot traffic to her room. She alleges that the franchisor owned and operated the hotel during the relevant period, a point G6 disputes. She further alleges that her traffickers advertised her on online platforms and that hotel staff “knew or should have known” she was being trafficked as a minor. G6 denies those allegations and contends that the complaint lacks specific interactions, specific observations, or any allegation that franchisor personnel knew anything about the alleged trafficking.
G6 moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the allegations were conclusory and did not satisfy the TVPRA’s beneficiary-liability elements. The plaintiff opposed the motion, and the court heard argument based on the pleadings alone.
Decision
Judge Estudillo granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court began by reaffirming that while the TVPRA allows civil claims against entities that knowingly benefit from a trafficking venture they “knew or should have known” was occurring, the statute still requires non-conclusory allegations connecting the defendant to the specific trafficking at issue. The court emphasized that franchisors and parent companies are “typically one or multiple steps removed from the local hotel and its staff” and that plaintiffs must therefore allege additional facts to show a franchisor’s actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, or participation in a trafficking venture.
The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege G6’s knowledge under any theory. The allegations that hotel staff saw bruises, suspicious items, or foot traffic were characterized as conclusory because the complaint did not identify which staff allegedly observed which conduct, did not describe any specific interactions between staff and the plaintiff, and did not allege any instance where staff witnessed violence or coercion. The court stated that “conclusory statements that certain things are ‘obvious signs of sex trafficking’ do not satisfy the pleading standard,” and explained that the TVPRA requires allegations showing that staff should have known the plaintiff—rather than someone else—was being trafficked. The court contrasted this case with others involving specific allegations of staff witnessing beatings, screams, pleas for help, or staff actively assisting traffickers. No such allegations were made here.
The court next held that the complaint did not allege facts showing G6’s participation in a trafficking venture. It explained that the plaintiff must allege either a direct association between the franchisor and the traffickers or a continuous business relationship in which the franchisor rented rooms to traffickers knowing or having reason to know that trafficking was occurring. Allegations that the franchisor rented rooms through its brand did not satisfy that requirement because the complaint did not allege that G6 had personal knowledge of the alleged trafficking advertisements or any direct relationship with the individuals renting the rooms.
Finally, the court determined that the complaint did not allege an agency relationship between the franchisor and the staff at the Tacoma Motel 6. The plaintiff characterized G6 as an “operator,” but the court noted that such labels were insufficient without facts showing the franchisor controlled day-to-day operations, set wages, made personnel decisions, or oversaw room rentals. The court explained that allegations showing the franchisor’s control over pricing, bookings, housekeeping policies, guest data, or required reporting protocols might support an agency allegation in other cases, but none were pleaded here. The court also noted that the plaintiff acknowledged G6 did not actually operate this property, which undermined the agency theory. Given these pleading deficiencies, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
Looking Forward
This decision reinforces a significant and growing trend limiting TVPRA claims against franchisors where plaintiffs do not plausibly allege franchisor knowledge, control, or operational involvement. Courts are consistently requiring trafficking plaintiffs to “connect the dots” between what staff at a branded location allegedly knew and what the franchisor itself knew or controlled. As this court noted, general allegations that staff observed “red flags,” or that a franchisor maintained brand standards, do not satisfy the TVPRA’s knowledge or venture-participation elements. Nor do general assertions that a franchisor “operated” a location without accompanying factual allegations.
For franchisors, the case underscores the importance of carefully structured franchise agreements that preserve brand standards without creating day-to-day control over franchisee operations. It also highlights the growing judicial recognition that franchisors have no statutory duty under the TVPRA to “affirmatively stop or monitor trafficking,” a point several courts have now endorsed. While the court’s findings are tied to the allegations and procedural posture of this matter, the decision illustrates how the TVPRA’s pleading standards continue to serve as a critical defense tool for franchisors facing expansive trafficking theories in federal court.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
