7 www.loubar.org June 2026 When it comes to coverage, make sure you’re playing with a full deck. Sure, there is a chance you’ll never need us. But why take that chance? Lawyers Mutual is dedicated to Kentucky lawyers and makes your work our priority. Call (502) 568-6100 or visit LMICK.com for more information on how you can cover and protect your practice. We want you to focus on what matters. (Continued from previous page) formulation has provided a unifying analyti- cal structure even as district courts continue to apply the statute across varied factual and commercial settings. To plead participation, complaints com- monly rely on allegations of repeated com- mercial interactions rather than isolated incidents. Plaintiffs assert that traffickers rented rooms for extended periods, made multiple stays or repeatedly returned to the same property, coupled with allegations that continued rentals, failure to intervene or lack of escalation facilitated the trafficking activity. At the pleading stage, courts often focus on whether such allegations plausibly suggest a continuous or tacit commercial relationship supporting the alleged venture. The knowledge element is typically advanced through allegations of constructive, rather than actual, knowledge. Complaints identify purported indicators, often described as “red flags” though not defined by the statute, such as heavy foot traffic, cash payments, refusal of housekeeping services, repeated supply requests or disturbances. Although defen- dants regularly challenge both the accuracy and significance of these allegations, courts tend to treat the knowledge inquiry as fact intensive and often decline to resolve it on a motion to dismiss. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that civil TVPRA liability remains a case specific, fact driven inquiry. As one court observed, “federal district courts across the country are tackling these suits and interpreting the TVPRA on a case-by-case basis.” J.M. v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., 2022 WL 10626493, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022). As a result, early motion outcomes often vary, and liabil- ity frequently turns on granular allegations concerning a defendant’s specific conduct and operational role. Finally, complaints commonly layer in agen- cy or vicarious liability theories, particularly against franchisors or parent companies removed from day-to-day operations. These claims hinge on allegations of control over policies, training, staffing or operational standards and often dominate early motion practice. III. A Recent Expansion of TVPRA Claims to Third Parties A recent development in TVPRA litigation is plaintiffs’ increasing effort to bring third par- ty service providers, such as hotel security contractors, into cases traditionally focused on hospitality entities. These theories extend enterprise level liability by alleging that con- tractors benefitted from trafficking ventures through service contracts while failing to act on alleged indicators of trafficking. This expansion is illustrated by L.H. v. Red Roof Inn, Inc., 2025 WL 714385 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 5, 2025). There, a security company moved to dismiss a third-party indemnity claim brought by the hotel franchisor. The court denied the motion and, in the same ruling, granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to assert direct TVPRA claims against the security company, accepting at the pleading stage allegations that the contractor benefitted from participation in a joint venture with the hotel. The court emphasized the early procedural posture and did not resolve whether the se- curity company ultimately participated in a trafficking venture or possessed the requisite knowledge. The case was later settled before the court addressed any motion to dismiss directed at the plaintiff’s TVPRA claims against the security company. While such claims may face substantial hurdles at sum- mary judgment, L.H. is significant for what it signals. The statute’s civil remedy may reach entities beyond franchisees and franchisors, expanding the pool of defendants required to litigate fact intensive TVPRA claims. IV. Practical Takeaways for Hospitality and Event Driven Businesses The expansion of civil TVPRA litigation presents tangible challenges for hospital- ity operators and event-driven businesses, particularly in cities that host large-scale, high-density events. • Clarify operational roles and escalation protocols. Courts assess participation and knowledge through day-to-day prac- tices. Clear policies governing escalation and reporting, especially during peak events, matter. • Scrutinize third party relationships. Security contractors, staffing vendors and others may face direct exposure. Contracts should define scope, authority and reporting obligations with precision. • Emphasize training and documenta- tion. While not dispositive, training and contemporaneous records often become critical evidence in constructive knowl- edge disputes. • Plan for litigation beyond the pleading stage. Fact intensive claims frequently survive dismissal. Early case assessment and coordinated record management can meaningfully affect cost and posture. V. Conclusion Civil TVPRA litigation has moved well beyond its origins as an ancillary remedy to criminal prosecution and now represents sustained civil exposure for hospitality and event-driven businesses, particularly in markets like Louisville where tourism density and large-scale events are defining features. Courts’ reluctance to resolve participation and knowledge issues at the pleading stage means that litigation risk often lies less in ulti- mate liability than in the cost and duration of defending these claims. As plaintiffs continue to test enterprise level and third-party theo- ries, informed operational and contractual planning has become essential to managing how that risk unfolds once suit is filed. Riley Grant is a Senior Associate in the Prod- uct, Tort, & Insurance Litigation Group at FBT Gibbons LLP, where his practice centers on nationwide product li- ability and mass tort litigation. He is also Vice-Chair of the LBA’s Litigation Section. n
