March 31, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
March 31, 2026 | U.S. District Court for the District of Utah | Judge Ted Stewart | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, the District of Utah dismissed in full a human trafficking action brought against multiple hotel operators and franchisors, including Choice Hotels International and Extended Stay America, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”). The plaintiff alleged that she was trafficked at several franchised hotel locations and that the hotel defendants knowingly benefited from or participated in that trafficking. The defendants argued that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that they knew or should have known of trafficking involving force, fraud, or coercion. The court agreed and dismissed the claims, concluding that the allegations—while consistent with commercial sex activity—did not support a reasonable inference of trafficking under the statute. The decision provides an important limitation on the scope of hotel and franchisor liability in TVPRA cases.
Relevant Background
The plaintiff alleged that she was trafficked by an individual over a period spanning 2014 and 2015, including during stays at several hotel properties in Salt Lake City. These properties were owned or operated by franchisees affiliated with national hotel brands.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff engaged in repeated commercial sex activity at the hotels, including meeting customers in hotel lobbies, hosting multiple clients per day, requesting fresh linens, and disposing of condoms in hotel trash receptacles. She further alleged that she exhibited visible signs of injury, including bruising, and that hotel staff observed aspects of her activity.
The plaintiff asserted that these facts, combined with the hotel industry’s general awareness of trafficking risks, were sufficient to establish that the hotel defendants knew or should have known that she was being trafficked. She brought claims under the TVPRA seeking to impose liability on the hotel operators and franchisors.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to allege facts demonstrating knowledge of trafficking involving force, fraud, or coercion, as required under the statute.
Decision
The court dismissed the TVPRA claims in their entirety, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege the required knowledge element under either a beneficiary or perpetrator theory of liability.
The court emphasized that the TVPRA requires more than allegations of commercial sex activity. To state a claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant knew or should have known that the activity involved force, threats, fraud, or coercion. The distinction between consensual commercial sex and trafficking was central to the court’s analysis.
Applying that framework, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegations—while detailed—did not cross that threshold. The court acknowledged that the complaint described conduct that could suggest prostitution, including frequent visitors, cash payments, requests for linens, and visible indicators of sex work. However, these facts were insufficient to support an inference that the plaintiff was being trafficked through coercive means.
The court also addressed allegations concerning the plaintiff’s physical condition, including bruising and a tattoo that she characterized as “branding.” The court concluded that these facts, without additional context linking them to coercion by a trafficker, did not plausibly establish that the hotel defendants should have recognized trafficking. The complaint did not allege that hotel staff observed acts of violence, interactions with the trafficker demonstrating control, or other facts tying the plaintiff’s condition to coercive conduct.
In distinguishing cases where similar claims had survived dismissal, the court noted the absence of allegations showing direct involvement or presence of the trafficker at the hotels, or interactions between the trafficker and hotel staff. The complaint suggested that the trafficker was not present at the properties and that the plaintiff handled transactions independently, which further weakened the inference of knowledge.
The court also rejected reliance on generalized allegations regarding the prevalence of trafficking in the hotel industry. While such allegations may provide context, they do not substitute for specific facts demonstrating that a defendant knew or should have known of trafficking in a particular instance.
Because the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege knowledge of trafficking, the court dismissed both beneficiary and perpetrator liability claims. The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, finding that the deficiencies were not meaningfully addressed and that amendment would be futile.
Looking Forward
This decision provides important guidance on the limits of liability under the TVPRA, particularly for franchisors and operators in the hospitality industry. While courts have allowed similar claims to proceed where plaintiffs allege detailed facts linking hotel operations to trafficking activity, this case illustrates that not all allegations of suspicious conduct are sufficient.
The court’s analysis reinforces that the statutory standard requires a connection between observed conduct and coercive trafficking activity. Allegations consistent with commercial sex, even when repeated or visible, do not necessarily establish that a defendant knew or should have known of trafficking. This distinction is likely to remain a key battleground in TVPRA litigation.
For franchisors, the decision underscores the importance of maintaining clarity regarding the scope of knowledge and control within a system. Courts continue to evaluate whether alleged conduct reflects generalized awareness of risk or specific knowledge of unlawful activity. The absence of allegations tying franchisors or operators to the underlying coercion was central to the outcome here.
At the same time, the decision should be understood as fact-specific. Courts have reached different conclusions where plaintiffs allege additional facts linking hotel operations to trafficking activity, including direct interactions with traffickers or failures to respond to specific warnings. As such, the case highlights the importance of careful factual analysis at the pleading stage.
Taken together, the decision reflects a developing body of law that both expands and limits liability in the hospitality context. While plaintiffs continue to test the boundaries of the TVPRA, courts remain attentive to the statutory requirement that liability be tied to knowledge of coercive conduct, not merely the presence of commercial sex activity.
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 Partner at Buchalter LLP 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.
