September 12, 2025|Publications
September 12, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished decision, Judge Richard A. Jones of the Western District of Washington dismissed Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) claims brought by a plaintiff who alleged she was trafficked at a Holiday Inn near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Plaintiff asserted that Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC, and franchisee Cascade Hospitality, LLC knowingly benefited from and participated in a trafficking venture. She relied on allegations of generalized industry knowledge, “red flags” of prostitution activity, and later-posted online reviews. The franchisors argued that plaintiff had not pleaded specific facts showing they knew or should have known of trafficking involving force, fraud, or coercion, or that they participated in such a venture. The court agreed, holding that the allegations amounted at most to commercial sex activity, not trafficking as defined by statute, and dismissed the case without prejudice with leave to amend.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff alleged that from December 2013 through December 2014, her trafficker repeatedly forced her to engage in commercial sex acts at the Holiday Inn located in SeaTac, Washington, a hotel owned and operated by the franchisee Cascade Hospitality under the IHG system. She asserted that both the franchisors and franchisee were aware of the pervasive problem of sex trafficking in the hotel industry. According to the complaint, it is “well known that hotels are the primary place where [sex trafficking] happens” and numerous governmental and nonprofit agencies had “devoted significant efforts to educating the hotel industry, including Defendants, on best practices for identifying and responding to sex trafficking”.
Plaintiff alleged that defendants were aware of these best practices and of trafficking specifically at IHG-branded properties. She cited news reports from other locations involving IHG hotels. She also cited two online reviews posted in 2015 and 2016—after the alleged period of trafficking—one referring to “prostitutes” and another describing a husband meeting with “his whore” at the hotel.
More specifically, plaintiff alleged that while she was being trafficked, hotel staff observed and ignored numerous “red flags,” including:
- use of either her ID or her trafficker’s ID to rent rooms;
- payments made in cash;
- front desk staff making comments such as “how much?” or calling her “legs”;
- her use of “Do Not Disturb” signs to block housekeeping;
- repeated requests for towels and sheets;
- the trafficker loitering in the parking lot or common areas while she was with buyers;
- her wearing provocative clothing;
- escorting men past the front desk to her room; and
- many men visiting at odd hours for brief stays.
Despite these allegations, plaintiff claimed defendants knowingly continued to rent rooms and provide services, facilitating her exploitation. On this basis, she asserted two claims: (1) beneficiary liability under the TVPRA, 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), against all defendants; and (2) vicarious liability for TVPRA violations against the franchisor defendants.
Decision
Judge Jones dismissed the complaint in full. He explained that under § 1595, plaintiffs must plead that defendants “knew or should have known” they were participating in a venture engaged in trafficking. Citing Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., 35 F.4th 1159, 1177 (9th Cir. 2022), the court noted that negligence can suffice, but general awareness of trafficking in an industry is “too attenuated” to establish knowledge of specific violations. Allegations about trafficking at other IHG properties or general training efforts were insufficient to tie defendants to plaintiff’s alleged trafficking at the SeaTac Holiday Inn.
The court turned to plaintiff’s red flag allegations and concluded they suggested commercial sex but not trafficking involving force, fraud, or coercion. Judge Jones analogized the complaint to A.B. v. Extended Stay America, Inc., No. 22-cv-5939, 2023 WL 5951390, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2023), where similar allegations—provocative clothing, men entering at odd hours, repeated linen requests—were found inadequate because they lacked non-conclusory allegations of coercion. He contrasted this case with Doe (S.A.S.) v. ESA P Portfolio LLC, 2024 WL 3276417, at *8 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2024), where the plaintiff alleged she was constantly guarded, her trafficker used the hotel computer to post ads, yelling was audible from her room, and staff even exchanged rooms for sex, and with R.T. v. RRI West Mgmt. LLC, 2025 WL 961531, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2025), where traffickers paid staff to act as lookouts and staff ignored visible injuries. By comparison, Judge Jones held that plaintiff’s allegations “at most support an inference that Hotel staff were aware Plaintiff was engaging in commercial sex, but not that she was a victim of sex trafficking and subject to force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion”.
The court also rejected reliance on online reviews posted after the alleged trafficking, reasoning that they did not reference coercion and could not establish contemporaneous knowledge. As the Seventh Circuit observed in G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 76 F.4th 544, 557 (7th Cir. 2023), in single-victim cases, knowledge of the victim is inseparable from knowledge of the venture. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege either.
On participation, Judge Jones explained that routine hotel-guest transactions—renting rooms, accepting cash, honoring “Do Not Disturb” signs, and providing linens—do not constitute active participation in a trafficking venture. He cited Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 21 F.4th 714, 726–27 (11th Cir. 2021), which held that “observing something is not the same as participating in it.” Unlike in R.T., where staff allegedly acted as lookouts or ignored pleas for help, plaintiff’s allegations here remained within the realm of ordinary business practices. As to the alleged franchise venture, the court held that a franchisor–franchisee business relationship is not, by itself, a trafficking venture for purposes of § 1595.
Finally, Judge Jones dismissed a stray reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides remedies for victims trafficked as minors, as abandoned. The case was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend within 21 days.
Looking Forward
This decision demonstrates a disciplined approach to TVPRA litigation and highlights the importance of distinguishing between commercial sex activity and trafficking involving coercion. For franchisors and franchisees, it underscores that courts are not willing to impose liability based on general industry awareness, routine hotel practices, or the mere existence of a franchise relationship. Liability must rest on specific facts showing knowledge of coercion and conduct amounting to active participation.
The order provides a helpful counterbalance to recent rulings in the same district that allowed cases to proceed on broader allegations. By requiring allegations of visible abuse, coercion, or direct involvement of staff, Judge Jones reinforced a standard that respects both the statutory language and the operational realities of franchised hotels. For hotel brands and their franchisees, this case offers a favorable precedent and a reasonable framework: franchisors cannot be expected to police every property based on generalized industry knowledge, and franchisees should not face liability for ordinary business practices unless tied to specific trafficking conduct.
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 or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
