Red Roof Inn Human Trafficking Lawsuit

Red Roof Inn has appeared in federal human trafficking litigation involving properties in several states, including Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and South Carolina.

The litigation has produced different procedural outcomes, including claims surviving motions to dismiss, jurisdictional rulings, statute-of-limitations decisions, and confidential settlements.

Two Atlanta-area cases reached settlements in 2023 and 2024. The 2024 case proceeded through approximately eight days of federal jury-trial testimony before the parties reached a confidential resolution.

More recent cases have addressed different questions.

Some concern whether particular claims were filed within applicable deadlines, while others examine whether allegations against property-level defendants or Red Roof-related entities are sufficient to continue.

These cases do not establish a single result applicable to every Red Roof Inn property.

The outcome of a particular lawsuit depends on the hotel involved, the conduct attributed to the defendants, the available evidence, and the legal issues before the court.

Recent Lawsuits, Settlements, and Court Decisions Involving Red Roof Inn Properties

Human trafficking litigation involving Red Roof Inn properties has produced pleading-stage rulings, jurisdiction decisions, statute-of-limitations rulings, settlements, and other court orders.

The cases involve different properties, hotel owners, franchisees, Red Roof-related entities, alleged trafficking periods, and factual records.

A ruling allowing a claim to proceed does not establish that a defendant participated in trafficking or knowingly benefited from an unlawful trafficking venture.

Recent and significant Red Roof Inn human trafficking litigation includes:

• July 20, 2026, A.H. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.: The plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to sex trafficking at two Michigan Red Roof Inn properties in 2012 when she was 15 years old. The Southern District of Ohio reconsidered an earlier ruling and concluded that her Child Abuse Victims’ Rights Act claim was not barred by the applicable filing deadline. The decision addressed timeliness and did not determine whether Red Roof entities participated in the alleged trafficking.
• March 30, 2026, H.M.L. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.: The plaintiff alleges that she was trafficked at a Red Roof Inn in Greenville, South Carolina, from 2012 through 2014. The court denied franchisee Harmony Hospitality, LLC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after examining its relationship with Ohio-based Red Roof entities, including reservation and payment systems, technology, training requirements, and other contacts. The ruling determined where the case could proceed rather than whether the defendants were liable.
• March 5, 2025, D.E.G. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.: The plaintiff alleges that she was repeatedly trafficked at a Red Roof Inn on North High Street in Columbus, Ohio, between 2010 and 2013. The court dismissed a perpetrator-liability theory but allowed other claims, including a TVPRA beneficiary theory, to continue. The decision concerned the sufficiency of the allegations at the pleading stage.
• 2024 Atlanta settlement: Eleven women alleged that they were subjected to trafficking at Red Roof properties in Atlanta and Smyrna during periods spanning approximately 2009 through 2018. The case proceeded through approximately eight days of federal jury-trial testimony before the parties reached a confidential settlement. Because the case settled, the jury did not return a verdict and the settlement amount was not publicly disclosed.
• 2023 Atlanta settlement: Four women alleged trafficking at Atlanta and Smyrna Red Roof Inn properties and claimed that certain hotel employees accepted money or drugs to act as lookouts or warned traffickers about police activity. Red Roof disputed the allegations and liability. The case settled shortly before trial, and the financial terms were not publicly disclosed.

An earlier appellate decision, Doe #1 v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., is also frequently cited in hotel-trafficking litigation.

Despite Red Roof appearing in the case caption, the Eleventh Circuit’s franchisor analysis addressed claims against Choice Hotels International, Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, and Microtel-related defendants.

The court concluded that allegations concerning ordinary franchise relationships, financial benefits from hotel operations, inspections, online reviews, and general awareness of trafficking in the hotel industry were insufficient, without more, to establish participation in the specific trafficking ventures alleged.

That decision should not be described as holding that Red Roof can never face liability for trafficking at a Red Roof Inn.

Its significance is narrower and depends on the allegations and defendants actually addressed by the Eleventh Circuit.

Red Roof operates a hotel portfolio that includes Red Roof Inn, Red Roof PLUS+, HomeTowne Studios by Red Roof, and The Red Collection.

The company reports more than 700 properties and operates a substantial franchise system.

Federal human trafficking litigation has identified several separate Red Roof-related entities, including:

• Red Roof Inns, Inc.
• Red Roof Franchising, LLC.
• RRF Holding Company, LLC.
• RRI West Management, LLC.

Individual properties may also involve independent franchisees, real-estate owners, hotel operators, management companies, or businesses responsible for employing hotel personnel.

These entities are not legally interchangeable.

The company that owns a property may be different from the company operating the hotel, employing its staff, or holding the Red Roof franchise agreement.

Ownership and operating relationships can also change over time. Property records, corporate filings, franchise agreements, employment records, and court documents may help identify the companies connected to a Red Roof Inn during the period identified in a lawsuit.

Can Red Roof Be Liable for Trafficking at a Franchised Red Roof Inn?

Red Roof Inns or Red Roof Franchising is not automatically liable when trafficking allegedly occurs at an independently owned franchise property.

Claims against a Red Roof corporate entity may require evidence concerning that company’s own alleged financial benefit, participation, knowledge, control, or other conduct connected to the trafficking venture.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Franchise agreements and brand standards.
• Franchise fees and royalty payments.
• Reservation and payment systems.
• Inspection rights and procedures.
• Human trafficking training requirements.
• Incident-reporting systems.
• Communications involving the franchisee and Red Roof entities.
• Prior complaints or reports of criminal activity.
• Evidence concerning control over property-level employees.

The H.M.L. litigation illustrates how reservation systems, franchise payments, technology, training requirements, and communications can become relevant to analyzing the relationship between a local franchisee and Red Roof entities.

That jurisdictional ruling did not establish vicarious liability or determine that Red Roof participated in the alleged trafficking.

Evidence may help document a survivor’s presence at a Red Roof Inn, the alleged trafficking activity, interactions with hotel personnel, and other circumstances relevant to a potential civil claim.

Survivor-facing evidence may include:

• Hotel reservations and registration records.
• Receipts and payment records.
• Credit-card, debit-card, or cash transactions.
• Text messages, phone records, and online communications.
• Police reports or records of calls involving the property.
• Witness statements from survivors, guests, or hotel employees.
• Surveillance footage and security records.
• Housekeeping records or documentation concerning conditions inside hotel rooms.

Complaints involving Red Roof properties have alleged repeated cash payments, extended stays, frequent male visitors, visible injuries, repeated commercial-sex activity, and interactions between hotel employees and alleged traffickers.

Other records may become important during an investigation or lawsuit, including employee communications, internal incident reports, franchise agreements, inspection records, training materials, and corporate communications concerning suspected criminal or trafficking activity.

Survivors are not expected to possess those corporate records themselves. Relevant documents may be obtained through investigation, public records, subpoenas, or civil discovery.

No individual record or warning sign proves that trafficking occurred or that a particular defendant knew about the exploitation.

Evidence must be evaluated in the context of the individual property, people involved, and claims asserted.

Red Roof publicly describes several current programs intended to help hotel personnel recognize and report suspected human trafficking.

The company states that 100% of Red Roof properties and brand team members undergo annual virtual human trafficking prevention training.

Red Roof also reports offering in-person prevention training opportunities at franchisee regional meetings and a brand team meeting during 2025.

Red Roof says franchisees must report possible human trafficking, criminal activity, safety incidents, and other specified events through a third-party crisis-reporting system monitored 24 hours a day.

The company also supports the American Hotel & Lodging Association Foundation’s No Room for Trafficking initiative.

In January 2026, Red Roof announced that it had joined the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s AMBER Alert Secondary Distribution Network.

Red Roof states that AMBER Alerts are distributed to properties through HotelKey, its property-management system, and configured for front-desk managers and guest-service representatives.

The company also reported that personnel at more than 700 properties participated in a national trafficking-awareness campaign during January 2026.

These programs describe Red Roof’s current training, reporting, and child-safety efforts.

They do not establish what training or reporting procedures existed at a particular Red Roof Inn during an earlier alleged trafficking period or what an individual employee knew at that time.

Individuals seeking information about suspected trafficking may also contact appropriate law enforcement or the National Human Trafficking Hotline.

A survivor may have grounds to investigate a civil claim if sex trafficking, child sexual exploitation, forced labor, or another form of human trafficking allegedly occurred at a Red Roof Inn property.

The potential claim must be evaluated according to the survivor’s individual circumstances, the property involved, the time period, and the evidence available.

A survivor does not need to know the complete ownership history of the hotel before contacting an attorney.

They also do not need to possess every reservation record, corporate document, police report, or employee communication that may ultimately become relevant.

An investigation can identify the businesses associated with the property during the alleged trafficking period and seek records that may not be available to the survivor.

Evidence may also help establish what hotel personnel allegedly observed, whether suspicious activity was reported, and what harm resulted from the trafficking.

Federal and state filing deadlines can affect whether particular claims remain available, making the dates of the alleged exploitation an important part of the review.

If supported by the facts and applicable law, a civil lawsuit may seek compensation for legally recoverable physical, psychological, and financial harm, although no result or amount of recovery is guaranteed.

What Factors Could Affect a Red Roof Inn Human Trafficking Claim?

Several facts may affect whether a survivor has a viable Red Roof Inn human trafficking claim.

Relevant factors may include:

• The specific Red Roof Inn property involved.
• The dates and duration of the alleged trafficking.
• The survivor’s age during the alleged exploitation.
• Whether the conduct involved sex trafficking, child sexual exploitation, or forced labor.
• What hotel personnel allegedly observed or were told.
• Repeated room rentals, cash payments, or frequent visitor activity.
• Prior complaints, police calls, or reports of suspicious conduct.
• Interactions involving hotel personnel and alleged traffickers.
• Available hotel, payment, communication, medical, or witness evidence.
• Physical injuries and psychological harm.
• Applicable federal and state filing deadlines.

An attorney can investigate additional property, corporate, employment, and hotel records when they become relevant to evaluating the claim.

TorHoerman Law is investigating potential human trafficking claims involving survivors who allege that they were trafficked at Red Roof Inn properties.

Our attorneys can review the circumstances, investigate available hotel and court records, obtain information that may not be readily accessible to the survivor, and evaluate potential claims under applicable federal or state law.

A case investigation may include reservation and payment records, police reports, witness statements, employee communications, medical documentation, online advertisements, and other evidence relevant to the alleged trafficking.

Speaking with TorHoerman Law does not require you to file a lawsuit.

Consultations are free and confidential.

If you or someone you care about experienced trafficking at a Red Roof Inn property, contact TorHoerman Law to discuss the circumstances and the legal options that may be available.

You can also use the chat feature on this page to get in touch with our attorneys.