January 16, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
January 16, 2026 | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In a January 16, 2026 opinion, Judge John E. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part and denied in part Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) complaint arising from alleged sex trafficking at a franchised Days Inn property. Applying the Eleventh Circuit’s framework from Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F.4th 714 (11th Cir. 2021), the court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Wyndham “participated in a venture” that violated the TVPRA. The court dismissed the federal beneficiary-liability claim against the franchisor and dismissed the plaintiff’s Florida negligence claim as time-barred. The court, however, declined to dismiss the vicarious liability theory at the pleading stage. The decision reinforces that shared revenue, brand standards, and generalized oversight do not, standing alone, establish participation in a trafficking venture.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff alleged that she was trafficked for commercial sex between August and October 2017 at a Days Inn property in Fort Myers, Florida. She asserted that Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., as franchisor of the Days Inn brand, exercised substantial control over the property through franchise agreements, brand standards, mandatory training programs, reservation systems, and inspection protocols.
The complaint alleged that hotel employees observed “red flags,” including cash payments, frequent short-term room rentals, refusal of housekeeping, visible physical distress, and open solicitation on hotel premises. Plaintiff contended that Wyndham knowingly benefited from trafficking activity by collecting franchise fees and royalties calculated as a percentage of gross room revenue.
Wyndham moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Decision
The court began with the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), which provides a civil remedy against a perpetrator “or whoever knowingly benefits … from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in” trafficking.
Relying on Red Roof Inns, the court reiterated that a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant:
- Knowingly benefited;
- From participation in a common undertaking or enterprise involving risk and potential profit;
- That violated the TVPRA as to the plaintiff; and
- With actual or constructive knowledge of that violation.
The court acknowledged that allegations of shared revenue and royalty payments may satisfy the “knowingly benefited” element at the pleading stage. However, the complaint failed at the “participation in a venture” element.
Citing Red Roof Inns, the court explained that participation in a venture requires more than a routine franchisor-franchisee relationship and more than continuing to operate a hotel business that incidentally rents rooms to traffickers. Allegations that a franchisor “knew or should have known that sex trafficking was occurring at its hotel” but continued a franchise business relationship are insufficient.
The court held that plaintiff’s allegations—franchise oversight, training requirements, audits, brand standards, and shared revenue—did not plausibly establish that Wyndham “took part in a common undertaking or enterprise involving risk and potential profit” that violated the TVPRA. Rather, the allegations described Wyndham’s ordinary role as a franchisor.
The court further concluded that because participation in a trafficking venture was not plausibly alleged, the knowledge element necessarily failed as well.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the TVPRA beneficiary-liability claim against Wyndham.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s Florida negligence and premises-liability claim with prejudice as time-barred under Florida’s four-year statute of limitations. The alleged trafficking occurred in 2017, and the negligence claim was filed well beyond the limitations period.
However, the court declined to dismiss the vicarious liability count at this stage, noting that it had previously found similar agency allegations sufficient to survive dismissal in other cases within the district. The dismissal of the TVPRA claim was without prejudice, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
Looking Forward
This decision is an important reaffirmation of the Eleventh Circuit’s Red Roof Inns framework and its limits on franchisor liability under the TVPRA.
First, shared revenue and franchise oversight are not enough. The court confirmed that allegations of royalty collection, brand standards, required training, inspections, and reservation systems do not, without more, establish participation in a trafficking venture. A franchisor’s ordinary business model—collecting fees based on gross room revenue—does not transform it into a participant in criminal conduct occurring at a franchised property.
Second, pleading standards remain meaningful. Courts continue to require factual allegations that plausibly tie a franchisor to a trafficking venture itself, not merely to a commercial relationship with a franchisee where trafficking allegedly occurred.
Third, the dismissal of the negligence claim underscores the importance of statute-of-limitations defenses in trafficking-adjacent litigation. While the TVPRA contains a longer federal limitations period, state-law tort claims remain subject to traditional limitations analysis.
At the same time, the court’s refusal to dismiss the vicarious liability theory highlights that agency allegations remain a battleground. Franchisors should continue to evaluate the alignment between franchise agreements, operational practices, and training requirements to ensure that brand standards do not unintentionally blur the line between quality control and operational control.
Overall, Weiner reinforces that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, franchisors are not automatically liable for trafficking based on brand affiliation or revenue sharing alone. Plaintiffs must plead more than generalized allegations of oversight and profit to survive dismissal.
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 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.
