The number of lawsuits against hotels by sex trafficked victims continues to be high, and shows no sign of abating. Alas.
By definition, sex trafficking involves prostitution by an unwilling victim, typically female, forced to participate by physical force, fraud and coercion.
A federal statute called the Trafficking Victims Protection Act enables victims to sue hotels that benefit financially from sex trafficking, provided the staff knew or should have known that such illegal activity was occurring.
Typically, [1] hotels deny liability and ask the judge to dismiss the case without the need for a trial. Per court procedure, judges grant such motions if the judge determines, after an initial review of plaintiff’s claim, that plaintiff is not likely to win. In many of the sex trafficking cases against hotels, courts are denying these motions. If so, the cases either proceed to trial or get settled.
Courts have found the following indicators, alleged in most of these cases, sufficient to avoid dismissal: the trafficker paid for the room with cash or prepaid cards; there is heavy foot traffic in and out of the victim’s hotel room at all hours by men who are not hotel guests and who stay only briefly; traffickers regularly linger around the hotel or in the parking lot while the victim is with a customer; “Do Not Disturb” signs are utilized to keep housekeeping staff away; plaintiff walks around the hotel in sexually explicit clothing; while at the facility plaintiff appears bruised, malnourished and/or drug or alcohol-impaired; online reviews of the hotel attest to the presence of sex trafficking.
In response to the lawsuits, some hotels are denying knowledge that the plaintiff’s participation in the sexual activity was involuntary. Courts are rejecting this defense, noting that the telltale signs of trafficking, identified herein, are sufficient “red flags” to alert the hotel that the plaintiff is not a willing participant.
Note to hotel operators and managers: the buck stops with you. In one recent case the court acknowledged, “The hotel operator controls the training policies and decisions on the implementation and execution of anti-trafficking policies, protocols, rules and guidelines for the motel.” Liability results from failure to implement sufficient training programs and policies for stopping sex trafficking.
Franchisors are often included as defendants based primarily on vicarious liability. They too have been unsuccessful in pursuing motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that franchisors impose standards on franchisees covering virtually all aspects of hotel operations. Courts have found such claims sufficient for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss.
The lessons are clear. Be vigilant. Train your workers. When sex trafficking is suspected, notify police immediately. Thereby you will save the wellbeing of many would-be victims, and protect your establishment from liability.
[1] See, for example, Doe v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2025 WL 342092 (NJ, 1/30/25), and P.C. v. D Fort Hotel, LLC, 2025 WL 404296 (Colo., 2/5/2025).
This article was originally published in the April edition of Hotel Management magazine. Subscribe here.