Choice Hotels International is one of the largest hotel franchising companies in the hospitality industry, with brands operating throughout the United States and around the world. Its portfolio includes Quality Inn, Comfort Inn, Econo Lodge, Rodeway Inn and numerous other familiar hotel names. Like other major hotel franchisors, however, Choice Hotels has also found itself involved in legal disputes concerning what responsibility a corporate hotel brand may have for events occurring at independently owned and operated franchise locations.
Among the more serious legal issues involving Choice Hotels are lawsuits brought under federal anti-trafficking laws. These cases are part of a much broader legal debate affecting the hotel industry over whether franchisors can potentially be held responsible when trafficking allegedly occurs at hotels carrying their brands.
One such lawsuit in Washington received attention in February 2025 after a federal judge declined to dismiss significant claims involving Choice Hotels International.
Federal Court Allows Claims Involving Choice Hotels to Continue
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe A. According to the plaintiff’s attorneys, the case involves allegations of sex trafficking that occurred between 2012 and 2016 at hotels associated with Choice Hotels and G6 Hospitality brands.
Choice Hotels is the franchisor behind Quality Inn, while G6 Hospitality has historically been associated with Motel 6. Individual franchise operators were also named in the litigation.
The plaintiff brought claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, commonly known as the TVPRA. Federal law provides trafficking survivors with a civil avenue for pursuing certain individuals or businesses alleged to have participated in trafficking ventures or knowingly benefited from qualifying ventures under circumstances covered by the statute.
Choice Hotels sought dismissal of the claims against it.
The federal court declined to grant that request at the dismissal stage, allowing significant portions of the plaintiff’s case to continue. According to a February 2025 announcement from Singleton Schreiber LLP, the law firm representing the plaintiff, the surviving theories included TVPRA perpetrator and beneficiary liability claims as well as a theory seeking to hold Choice Hotels vicariously liable for conduct attributed to its franchisee.
That decision is important, but it should not be confused with a final judgment against Choice Hotels.
When a court denies a motion to dismiss, it generally means that the plaintiff has alleged enough at that stage for the relevant claims to continue through the litigation process. It does not establish that the allegations are true, nor does it mean that Choice Hotels has been found legally responsible for the alleged trafficking.
Allegations Concerning Hotel Warning Signs
The lawsuit contains disturbing allegations concerning what allegedly occurred at the properties involved.
According to the plaintiff’s complaint as described by her attorneys, there were numerous circumstances that should have raised concerns among hotel personnel. These allegedly included frequent cash payments, extensions of hotel stays on a day-to-day basis, significant numbers of male visitors entering a particular room and visible indications that the plaintiff was being abused.
The lawsuit alleges that hotel personnel failed to respond appropriately to those warning signs. It further alleges that a franchisee accepted payments from traffickers in connection with allowing visitors onto the property after normal hours.
These remain allegations being litigated rather than established findings of fact.
The case nevertheless raises a much larger question for Choice Hotels and the hotel franchise industry: Where does the responsibility of an international hotel brand end and the responsibility of an independently owned franchise begin?
The Choice Hotels Franchise Question
The franchise relationship has become an important issue in trafficking litigation involving major hotel brands.
Many hotels carrying nationally recognized names are not actually owned or operated by the corporation whose logo appears outside the building. Instead, an independent company owns the property and operates it pursuant to a franchise agreement.
This distinction can become extremely important when determining legal responsibility.
Hotel franchisors have argued in various cases that independent franchisees control the day-to-day operations of their properties, including hiring employees, supervising staff and interacting with guests. Under that view, the presence of a corporate brand does not automatically make the franchisor responsible for everything occurring inside an independently operated hotel.
Plaintiffs have challenged that position by pointing to the degree of influence hotel companies may exercise over their franchise networks.
In the Washington litigation, the plaintiff alleged that Choice Hotels exercised substantial influence through mechanisms including centralized reservation systems, brand requirements, policies and anti-trafficking training. The plaintiff’s attorneys contend that these connections are relevant when evaluating whether Choice Hotels could potentially bear responsibility under federal law.
Choice Hotels and other hotel companies have contested similar theories in litigation, and outcomes can vary significantly depending upon the facts of an individual case.
Choice Hotels Has Faced More Than One Trafficking Lawsuit
The Washington case does not exist in isolation.
Choice Hotels and independently operated hotels carrying Choice brands have been named in multiple lawsuits involving allegations under the TVPRA. Similar litigation has also affected numerous other major companies throughout the hotel industry.
Plaintiffs in these cases have alleged that hotel employees encountered warning signs that should have prompted intervention or reporting. Alleged indicators described in litigation have included unusual visitor traffic, repeated cash transactions, extended stays, visible injuries or abuse and other behavior plaintiffs contend should have raised concerns.
The legal outcomes have not been uniform.
Choice Hotels has successfully defended itself against certain claims, including cases in which courts concluded that evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary connection between the corporate franchisor and alleged conduct occurring at independently operated properties. Other cases, however, have survived early attempts at dismissal and continued further into litigation.
That mixed history illustrates why broad statements that Choice Hotels either has or has not been held responsible for trafficking at its franchise locations can be misleading. Each lawsuit depends upon its own allegations, evidence, franchise relationships and applicable legal standards.
A Larger Controversy for the Hotel Industry
The litigation involving Choice Hotels reflects an issue extending far beyond a single hotel company.
Hotels have increasingly become a focus of civil trafficking litigation because plaintiffs argue that lodging businesses may be positioned to identify certain warning signs. At the same time, courts must determine how federal trafficking laws apply to complicated franchise structures involving corporate brands, independent property owners, management companies and individual employees.
For Choice Hotels, those questions are particularly significant because of the enormous size of its franchise network.
The company’s business model allows independently owned hotels to operate under recognizable Choice Hotels brands while participating in corporate reservation, marketing and brand systems. That arrangement creates substantial commercial advantages, but lawsuits such as the Washington case are testing how far potential corporate responsibility extends when serious misconduct is alleged at a franchised property.
Choice Hotels CEO Publicly Addressed Trafficking Prevention
While former Choice Hotels CEO Patrick Pacious does not appear to have publicly addressed the specific allegations involved in this lawsuit, he has spoken publicly about the company’s efforts to combat human trafficking. In a 2024 interview with Protect All Children from Trafficking, Pacious said Choice Hotels had expanded its anti-trafficking resources and made training an annual requirement for franchised hotel owners or designated managers, managed-hotel associates and U.S.-based corporate employees.
On a personal opinion note, I find it alarming that Choice Hotels haven’t really addressed this. The new CEO continues to be quiet, and while being contacted about my issue, he was silent as well. He doesn’t communicate that well, I assume, and prefers to stay silent, thinking it will just go away, I guess, and there will be no consequences. As I mentioned, I reached out to the CEO, Dominic Dragisich, and he was too scared to even say a word. He hides like a mole in the ground. I’m not surprised by a trafficking lawsuit, and these alleged activities are taking place because if they were notified, they wouldn’t even respond or address it. Not just the CEO, Dominic Dragisich; I contacted others, including Kishan Patel, who is a franchisee corporate head for the Pacific Northwest. Nobody has said a word and they continue to be silent. I’m not surprised these activities are happening, and they are not responding to the issue, allegedly, from what I’ve seen.
What the Choice Hotels Lawsuit Actually Means
It is important to distinguish allegations from proven facts when examining controversies involving Choice Hotels.
The Washington court’s refusal to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims did not determine that Choice Hotels participated in trafficking, knowingly permitted trafficking or is ultimately liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Those questions are subject to further litigation and potentially later rulings or trial proceedings.
What the decision did establish at that procedural stage was that the claims identified by the court could continue rather than being eliminated through Choice Hotels’ motion to dismiss.
That distinction matters.
Sex trafficking allegations are extraordinarily serious, and companies should not be described as having committed misconduct merely because they have been named as defendants. At the same time, lawsuits and judicial decisions involving major corporations are legitimate matters of public interest, particularly when courts allow significant claims to proceed.
The Choice Hotels litigation therefore represents both a controversy involving a major hospitality company and part of a developing legal question facing the broader hotel industry.
As trafficking survivors continue using the TVPRA to pursue hotel owners, franchise operators and corporate franchisors, courts will continue determining where responsibility lies within complicated franchise systems. For Choice Hotels, the outcome of these cases may help define how much legal responsibility a national hotel brand can bear for alleged misconduct occurring inside hotels carrying its name.
Sources for this article:
https://www.bakerdonelson.com/summary-judgment-victories-for-choice-hotels-international-inc