November 18, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
November 18, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Patti Saris denied motions to dismiss filed by Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. (“Hilton”) and its franchisee, Crosstown Center Hotel LLC (“Crosstown”), in a civil action brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”). According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged that she was sex trafficked between 2010 and 2014 at a Hampton Inn & Suites in Boston that Crosstown owned and operated as a franchised Hilton property. Plaintiff alleged that Hilton and Crosstown financially benefited from room rentals that contributed to a trafficking venture and that both entities knew or should have known of trafficking indicators. The defendants argued the claims were time-barred and failed to adequately plead TVPRA beneficiary liability. The Court rejected those arguments, finding the complaint timely under the continuing-violation doctrine and concluding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged both franchisee direct liability and franchisor vicarious liability under an agency theory. The Court emphasized that Hilton’s contractual control, as alleged, could support an agency relationship at the pleading stage. The Court therefore denied both motions to dismiss and allowed the claims to proceed.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations the Court accepted as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the plaintiff met her trafficker in 2010 and was coerced into commercial sex acts through force, threats, and psychological manipulation. Plaintiff alleged that she was trafficked repeatedly for several years at a Hampton Inn & Suites in Boston, a hotel owned and operated by Crosstown under a Hilton franchise. The opinion notes that both Hilton and Crosstown allegedly received revenue from room rentals involving the plaintiff and her trafficker. The plaintiff alleged that the hotel staff recognized her as a recurring presence and that her trafficker allegedly paid for rooms in cash or through prepaid cards, kept “Do Not Disturb” signs posted for multiple days, and monitored her movements on site. The plaintiff alleged that she had multiple visitors each day at unusual hours and that hotel employees provided housekeeping services once the trafficker vacated rooms. The plaintiff asserted that these circumstances, viewed collectively, were widely recognized red flags of trafficking within the hotel industry.
The complaint alleged that Hilton exercised substantial control over the Hampton Inn through brand standards and system requirements. The Court summarized allegations that Hilton established training, staffing, reservation, and security expectations; required use of Hilton-operated platforms for booking, payments, and guest-services administration; enforced quality and reporting systems; dictated certain employment policies; approved marketing; and maintained access to surveillance, compliance tools, and inspection mechanisms. The complaint also asserted that Hilton publicly committed to industry-wide anti-trafficking initiatives beginning in 2010 and monitored reviews, complaints, and news reports reflecting criminal activity or trafficking concerns. These allegations formed the basis for the plaintiff’s assertion that Hilton exercised the type of control that could support vicarious liability.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing first that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred because the trafficking occurred more than ten years before the lawsuit was filed. They also argued that the complaint failed to plead participation in a venture, failed to allege knowledge of trafficking as distinguished from general criminal activity, and failed to plausibly allege any agency relationship between Hilton and Crosstown.
Decision
The Court first addressed the statute of limitations. The TVPRA requires civil actions to be brought within ten years of the date the claim arose. The Court noted that the complaint alleged trafficking “through December 2014” and that plaintiff filed suit on December 31, 2024. Because the last alleged acts may have occurred on or after December 31, 2014, the Court held that dismissal on this basis was not appropriate. The Court further held that the continuing-violation doctrine applied to TVPRA claims and that, even if some alleged conduct occurred earlier, the complaint could proceed under that doctrine. The Court concluded that the statute-of-limitations defense could not be resolved at the pleading stage.
The Court next addressed Crosstown’s request for dismissal. The Court found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that her trafficker engaged in an act violating § 1591 of the TVPRA. The Court then analyzed whether the allegations plausibly established that Crosstown “participated in a venture” with the trafficker. The Court observed that federal courts have reached varying interpretations of this term but noted that most decisions reject the requirement that the venture be primarily a trafficking venture. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations that her trafficker repeatedly rented rooms at the Hampton Inn for four-and-a-half years and that hotel staff allegedly provided assistance beyond routine services. These allegations included assertions that Crosstown employees allegedly recognized her as a recurring visitor, assigned rooms upon request without scrutiny, observed patterns of multiple short-duration visitors, and provided supplies after the trafficker’s departure. The Court reasoned that these allegations, taken collectively, plausibly alleged a continuous business relationship that extended beyond an ordinary buyer-seller transaction. The Court therefore held that the complaint sufficiently alleged “participation in a venture” under the TVPRA.
The Court also determined that the plaintiff adequately alleged constructive knowledge. The Court explained that the TVPRA’s standard requires plausible allegations that the defendant knew or should have known the venture engaged in a trafficking violation, not merely prostitution or general illicit activity. The Court held that allegations concerning patterns of cash payments, extended “Do Not Disturb” signs, multiple male visitors per day, the trafficker’s supervision of the plaintiff on premises, and similar circumstances affecting other victims at the same hotel plausibly described circumstances from which staff should have recognized trafficking indicators. The Court concluded these allegations were specific enough to satisfy the knowledge requirement at the pleading stage.
Turning to Hilton, the Court addressed the plaintiff’s vicarious-liability theory. The Court noted that the TVPRA permits vicarious liability when an agent commits a tortious act within the scope of actual authority. The opinion explains that an agency relationship does not arise from a franchise agreement solely because of brand standards or quality controls. However, the Court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations that Hilton exercised control over staffing, wages, training, guest-services procedures, security protocols, reservation systems, marketing approvals, and property-management infrastructure. The Court observed that other courts have found such allegations sufficient to plead day-to-day control for purposes of vicarious liability during early pleading stages in TVPRA litigation. The Court noted that Hilton’s alleged access to surveillance systems, operational data, and compliance tools could support an inference of practical control. The Court held that, assuming the allegations were true, Hilton could plausibly be deemed to have exercised sufficient control over Crosstown’s operations to support a principal-agent relationship.
The Court rejected Hilton’s assertion that any trafficking-related misconduct would fall outside the scope of the agent’s authority. The Court explained that an agent’s authority includes actions the agent reasonably believes further the principal’s business objectives. The Court determined that room rentals were part of the franchise’s ordinary operations and could plausibly fall within an agent’s actual authority even if associated with alleged trafficking conduct. Because the plaintiff plausibly alleged franchisee liability and plausibly alleged an agency relationship, the Court held that Hilton could be vicariously liable under the TVPRA. Accordingly, the Court denied both defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Looking Forward
This decision illustrates several points relevant to franchisors and franchise brands operating in industries where TVPRA exposure may arise. Although the Court emphasized that it was addressing allegations rather than proven facts, the decision underscores how detailed pleadings regarding control, surveillance access, security practices, reservation systems, staffing, and training can support an agency theory at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Under different facts and in other jurisdictions, courts may assess these issues differently; however, the opinion reflects a trend toward more expansive interpretations of the TVPRA’s beneficiary-liability provisions when plaintiffs allege longstanding patterns of trafficking conduct at branded locations.
The Court’s discussion of constructive knowledge similarly highlights the importance of effective franchisee training, documentation of reporting protocols, and consistent enforcement of anti-trafficking policies. Allegations concerning extended “Do Not Disturb” periods, repeated short-duration visits, cash payments, and patterns involving multiple victims may be viewed collectively as red flags. While allegations alone do not establish liability, franchisors may view this decision as reinforcing the importance of monitoring franchisee compliance with safety protocols without assuming franchisee employment functions or direct operational control.
Finally, the Court’s application of the continuing-violation doctrine reflects an emerging tendency among federal courts to allow older trafficking allegations to proceed when plaintiffs plausibly allege ongoing conduct. Franchisors may consider evaluating whether brand-level systems, historical recordkeeping practices, and franchisee reporting structures align with evolving TVPRA interpretations.
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.
