What Can Civil Courts Do About Illicit Sex Businesses?

Sand castle massage parlors and strip clubs crumbling slowly

For years, communities across Texas have lived alongside businesses that operate in plain sight while quietly violating the law: massage parlors functioning as brothels, strip clubs intertwined with prostitution networks, and commercial sex enterprises that rely on plausible deniability to avoid scrutiny. Law enforcement action is uneven. Regulatory oversight is fragmented. And civil accountability is rarely tested.

This lawsuit was an attempt to change that.

I filed suit against several massage parlors and strip clubs in Texas state court not because I believed one case could dismantle an entire underground economy, but because civil courts remain one of the few arenas where the collateral damage of illicit sex businesses can be examined in full view—on the record, under oath, and subject to appellate review.

The Theory Behind the Case - Suing Illicit Sex Businesses

The lawsuit was grounded in a simple but under-tested premise: businesses that knowingly profit from illegal sexual activity should not be insulated from civil liability simply because criminal enforcement is inconsistent or politically inconvenient.

Illicit brothels do not exist in a vacuum. They distort neighborhoods, exploit vulnerable individuals, and create downstream harm—emotional, psychological, and economic—that extends well beyond the walls of the establishment. Yet civil law has largely avoided confronting this reality head-on.

This case sought to ask whether Texas tort law is capable of recognizing that harm.

Why Civil Litigation Matters Here - Liability for Illicit Sex Businesses Disincentivizes Exploitation, Human Trafficking, and the Collateral Damage of Illicit Economies

Courts are not moral arbiters. They are institutions designed to resolve disputes within defined legal frameworks. But precedent matters. And civil litigation, even when unsuccessful, performs an important auditing function: it reveals what our justice system is willing to address—and what it is not.

We often speak about ending human trafficking as a shared societal goal. In practice, however, enforcement tends to focus narrowly on individual actors while leaving the business structures that enable exploitation largely untouched. Civil liability can shift incentives by making it more costly to operate illegal enterprises under the guise of legitimacy.

The goal was never naïve optimism about a single sweeping victory. It was to test the boundaries of accountability.

Outcomes Are Not the Only Measure

In the course of this litigation, the court granted motions to dismiss for two defendants. That outcome matters procedurally, but it does not end the inquiry. Appeals exist precisely because trial-level decisions are not the final word on unsettled legal questions.

More importantly, litigation is not only about winning. It is about clarifying what the law currently permits, what it discourages, and where reform may be necessary. Courts will not—and cannot—do everything required to eradicate human trafficking or the industries that profit from it. That responsibility is distributed across legislatures, regulators, communities, and yes, private litigants willing to test uncomfortable questions.

The Broader Purpose

If justice were achieved solely through decisive courtroom victories, many important legal advances would never have occurred. Progress is cumulative. It is built grain by grain.

You do not build a sandcastle with one handful of sand. You build it with thousands of grains, each one small on its own but essential to the structure. I feel deeply fulfilled being one grain in that castle.

Whether this case ultimately succeeds on appeal or not, it contributes to a growing body of legal pressure that challenges the assumption that illicit sex businesses are untouchable. Precedent is not always created by winning—it is sometimes created by refusing to look away.

Current Status

In Texas state court, the judge granted motions to dismiss for two defendants. I will be appealing those rulings. The case continues to move through the appellate process, where the legal questions raised can be examined more fully.

The work, for me, continues—not because I believe courts will solve everything, but because accountability begins wherever someone is willing to insist that harm matters.