A federal court in New York recently granted motions to dismiss sex trafficking claims asserted against hotel operators and franchisor entities. Jane Doe (O.B.J.) v. Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc., 2026 WL 2969927 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2026). The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to sex trafficking at two Holiday Inn branded hotels in Manhattan, New York between July 2015 and January 2016. She sued the franchisee operators as well as the franchisor and related entities under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). All defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The sole issue before the court was whether the plaintiff plausibly alleged that any defendant “participated in a venture” with her alleged trafficker, or in other words, whether the defendants shared an enterprise or common undertaking with her trafficker—a required element to sustain a TVPRA claim. As to the other elements of a TVPRA claim, the court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that defendants knowingly benefited financially from the plaintiff’s trafficking, and that defendants knew or should have known of the trafficking.
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that defendants participated in a trafficking venture. Allegations that the hotels provided ordinary hotel services such as room rentals and related amenities to customers were not legally sufficient to meet TVPRA pleading requirements. The court rejected plaintiff’s allegations related to the failure to train and supervise employees regarding sex trafficking, the failure to adopt stricter anti-trafficking policies, the failure to stop plaintiff’s trafficking or otherwise intervene, among other allegations, holding that such failures only constituted inaction rather than affirmative participation in a trafficking venture. The court distinguished such failures from providing material support (i.e., affirmative participation) to a venture, holding that allegations sufficient to establish a shared enterprise or common undertaking included actions such as having hotel staff serve as lookouts for police, maintaining personal relationships with traffickers, forming a partnership with a trafficker, or providing tailored services to a trafficker. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged no such affirmative actions. Accordingly, all claims against the defendants were dismissed with prejudice.