October 17, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
October 17, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge James C. Mahan of the District of Nevada dismissed all claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) against several major Las Vegas casino and resort operators. The plaintiff alleged a 20-year history of coercive trafficking and claimed the defendant hotels were both perpetrators and beneficiaries under 18 U.S.C. § 1595. The court held that the TVPRA’s 10-year statute of limitations barred all claims predating December 20, 2014, and found the remaining allegations insufficient to meet the statute’s demanding standards for beneficiary or perpetrator liability. The court emphasized that generalized assertions of sex work on casino premises, references to “red flags,” or the existence of large hospitality operations do not establish that a business knew or should have known of coercive trafficking. The ruling reflects a continued judicial reluctance to expand TVPRA liability to legitimate business operations absent well-pled, defendant-specific allegations tied to coercion.
Relevant Background
The plaintiff filed suit pseudonymously, alleging that she had been trafficked in the Las Vegas area over a period spanning at least two decades. According to the complaint, she was subjected to physical abuse, threats, and coercion by multiple traffickers beginning around 2004. She alleged that these traffickers brought her to a range of prominent Strip casinos to engage in commercial sex acts, and that the defendants financially benefited from her presence as part of broader “sex tourism” activity associated with casino operations. The complaint further asserted that defendants maintained surveillance systems that should have detected her circumstances and that an employee at one defendant property was aware of her alleged abuse. These allegations, accepted as true at this stage, provided the factual backdrop for the court’s analysis.
The plaintiff brought both beneficiary-liability and perpetrator-liability claims under §§ 1595 and 1591, contending that the casinos knowingly profited from her trafficking and directly “harbored” her or otherwise assisted the traffickers. She also asserted an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Nevada law. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were untimely, unsupported by the statutory language, and insufficient as a matter of pleading.
Decision
The court began by addressing the TVPRA’s statute of limitations. Section 1595(c) requires adult victims to bring civil trafficking claims within ten years of the date the cause of action arose. Because the complaint was filed on December 20, 2024, the court held that only conduct occurring on or after December 20, 2014 could potentially support a claim. The plaintiff argued for application of the discovery rule, equitable tolling, and the continuing-violations doctrine, but the court rejected each argument. It noted that courts have repeatedly held that the TVPRA does not incorporate a discovery rule, that equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances the complaint did not allege, and that the continuing-violations doctrine is confined to narrow employment-discrimination principles not applicable here. This reasoning significantly restricted the scope of the case.
Turning to beneficiary liability, the court focused on § 1595(a)’s requirements that a defendant “knowingly benefitted” from “participation in a venture” that the defendant “knew or should have known” engaged in trafficking involving force, fraud, or coercion. The court accepted that casinos may benefit financially from individuals on their premises, but it held that this fact alone does not satisfy the statute. The plaintiff’s allegations that casinos attracted “sex tourism,” or that commercial sex activity occurred on casino property, did not plausibly establish that defendants knew or should have known of coercion. The court emphasized that the TVPRA does not impose an affirmative policing duty on hotels or other businesses and that knowledge of commercial sex, without more, is not enough. Although the plaintiff alleged one instance in which an employee observed concerning conduct, the court held this was insufficient to impute knowledge to any corporate defendant under the TVPRA’s standard, which requires a showing tied to the coercive nature of trafficking rather than the mere presence of commercial sex.
Regarding “participation in a venture,” the court recognized that normal commercial operations, including large-scale hospitality enterprises, can constitute “ventures” in a general sense. But a defendant’s participation in its own commercial enterprise does not automatically equate to participation in a trafficking venture. The court explained that the TVPRA requires more than the existence of legitimate business activity; it requires a plausible allegation of a relationship between the defendant’s operations and the coercive conduct at issue. Because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the casinos took actions connecting their operations to coercive trafficking, this element was not met.
The court also rejected perpetrator liability under § 1591(a), which requires actual knowledge of traffickers’ use of coercion. While the plaintiff alleged that casinos were aware of commercial sex, she did not allege facts showing that any defendant knowingly recruited, harbored, or maintained her with awareness that force or coercion was being used. The court found that the complaint’s conclusory assertions could not satisfy the statutory requirement of actual knowledge.
Finally, the court dismissed the intentional-infliction claim as time-barred under Nevada’s two-year limitations period. Because none of the plaintiff’s theories overcame statutory limitations, and because the remaining allegations did not satisfy the TVPRA’s standards, the court dismissed all claims but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to seek leave to amend within twenty-one days.
Looking Forward
This decision provides instructive guidance for national brands and hospitality companies facing TVPRA claims. The court’s strict application of the TVPRA’s statute of limitations underscores that older allegations cannot be revived through doctrines commonly invoked in other contexts. For franchisors and multi-unit operators, this ruling also reinforces that the TVPRA imposes demanding standards for civil liability and that generalized allegations of sex work or customer behavior do not translate into constructive knowledge of coercion. Courts continue to distinguish between normal commercial activity, which may involve high visitor volume or late-night operations, and allegations that would tie a business to a trafficking venture. This decision illustrates that plaintiffs must identify specific, defendant-focused conduct beyond mere awareness of commercial sex or reliance on brand reputation, and absent such allegations, dismissal is appropriate.
The opinion further affirms that the TVPRA does not impose a duty on businesses to police trafficking activity on their premises and that legitimate operational decisions—such as maintaining open public spaces or using standard surveillance tools—do not constitute participation in a trafficking venture. Entities operating under franchise or multi-property structures can also take comfort in the court’s analysis, which reflects a careful adherence to statutory limits rather than expanding liability based on assumptions about corporate scale or resources. The outcome in this case demonstrates the continued importance of maintaining compliance frameworks, documenting incident-response procedures, and reinforcing appropriate boundaries around guest-safety policies without assuming operational roles that belong to property-level management. These measures may help national brands navigate TVPRA allegations while ensuring that the distinction between corporate-level functions and on-site operations remains clear.
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.
