Sex Trafficking and Hotels

Plaintiffs in recent weeks have filed at least three suits accusing Wyndham Hotels & Resorts of enabling sex trafficking at Super 8 motels operated by its franchisees

Lawsuits accusing major hotel franchisors of enabling sex trafficking have piled up in recent weeks, underscoring the importance of anti-trafficking policies to protect guests and avoid legal risk.

Babin Law filed federal lawsuits Sept. 25 in the Southern District of Ohio against Days Inn and Super 8 franchisor Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Motel 6 franchisor G6 Hospitality and Red Roof Inns.

Days later, Andreozzi + Foote filed two federal lawsuits in the Middle District of Florida and another in the Northern District of Georgia against Wyndham.

What Happened?

All of the lawsuits were brought on behalf of plaintiffs who alleged they were sex trafficked as minors at hotels operated by defendants’ franchisees.

The suits charge that defendants knew, or should have known, their rooms were being used for trafficking but ignored red flags, including customers paying in cash, requesting rooms away from other guests and bringing large numbers of male visitors at all hours.

The plaintiffs are bringing their claims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which holds parties liable for knowingly profiting from trafficking.

Wyndham, G6 and Red Roof did not respond to requests for comment.

How We Got Here

More than 100 cases containing similar allegations have been filed against hotel franchisors since 2015, according to the Human Trafficking Legal Center.

Thomas O’Connell, who leads the franchise law group at Buchalter and is not involved in the hotel suits, said plaintiffs often sue franchisors because the franchisees that directly operate hotels have limited resources.

Last April, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to consolidate them into a single district, ruling that the claims were too different from one another.

Plaintiffs lawyers seeking the consolidation had told the panel that there could eventually be as many as 1,700 suits.

The franchisors have sought to dismiss the cases, arguing that they did not have enough direct knowledge or control of their franchisees’ hotels to make them liable. Some courts have agreed, but others have found that a franchisee renting a room to a sex trafficker was enough to let a lawsuit go forward.

O’Connell said that courts were wrestling with “how to ensure accountability for those complicit in trafficking while not imposing liability on entities that lack any meaningful connection to the underlying acts.”

“It is a difficult balance, and courts are now actively defining where that line should be drawn,” he said.

What's Next?

Any large-scale resolution of the suits is likely years away.

Swift Currie partner Kori Wagner wrote in the industry publication Hotel Online earlier this year that hotel owners and operators must “ensure that their employees are trained on how to identify potential criminal activity at the property and what to do if any suspicious activity is observed.”

She noted that, unlike in the 2010s when much of the conduct cited in the suits allegedly took place, hotel operators have access to myriad resources, including offers from anti-trafficking organizations to help with training.

For franchisors, compliance means auditing their franchisees’ adherence to anti-trafficking protocols and documenting those efforts, O'Connell said. At the same time, he said, they must make sure their records clearly show franchisees’ operational independence.

“The most effective compliance programs strike a careful balance—demonstrating good-faith prevention and brand oversight while preserving the structural independence that separates franchisors from franchisees,” he said.