TVPRA Claims Against Neil Gaiman
February 19, 2025
Claims brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) don’t often make headlines. But those filed on February 3, 2025 against British author Neil Gaiman and his American wife Amanda Palmer (who are divorcing) are an exception. Scarlett Pavlovich, who worked for three weeks as a live-in nanny for the couple, alleges that Gaiman repeatedly assaulted her sexually and that Palmer helped arrange this.
I have written about aspects of the TVPRA before, here and here. In this post, I use the complaint in Pavlovich v. Gaiman to provide an overview of the statute and to discuss some of the extraterritoriality questions not addressed by the complaint.
The TVPRA
Congress first enacted the TVPRA in 2000 and has expanded and reauthorized the statute several times with bipartisan support. The original act added forced labor, trafficking for forced labor, and sex trafficking as federal offenses to Chapter 77 of Title 18, which already contained offenses relating to peonage and slavery. In 2003, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, which added a civil remedy against perpetrators, codified at § 1595, for victims of these three offenses.
The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 significantly expanded the TVPRA’s geographic scope by providing in § 1596 that “the courts of the United States have extra-territorial jurisdiction over any offense (or any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense) under section 1581 [peonage], 1583 [enticement into slavery], 1584 [sale into involuntary servitude], 1589 [forced labor], 1590 [trafficking for forced labor], or 1591 [sex trafficking],” provided that an alleged offender is a U.S. national or permanent resident or is present in the United States.
When Congress extended the extraterritorial reach of the TVPRA in 2008, it also expanded § 1595’s civil remedy. First, Congress expanded the TVPRA cause of action beyond the three original offenses of forced labor, trafficking for forced labor, and sex trafficking, so that it now applies to any violation of Chapter 77. Second, Congress broadened the class of potential defendants beyond perpetrators to include any person who “knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter.” Third, Congress established a generous ten-year statute of limitations for civil claims. Congress has reauthorized the TVPRA several times since.
The Claims Against Gaiman and Palmer
The alleged assaults occurred in New Zealand. According to the complaint, Pavlovich met Palmer in Auckland, New Zealand in 2020 and would occasionally run errands and babysit for her. In 2022, Palmer asked Pavlovich to babysit for a weekend on Waiheke Island, during which Gaiman first allegedly raped her. Despite the assault, Pavlovich agreed to work as a live-in nanny for the couple because she needed the job and a place to live and because Gaiman promised to support her writing career. Over three weeks, Gaiman allegedly raped her two more times.
On February 3, 2025, Pavlovich filed a complaint against Gaiman in federal court in Wisconsin, where he allegedly resides. Pavlovich filed duplicate complaints against Palmer in federal courts in New York and Massachusetts because she is unsure where Palmer currently resides. Pavlovich says she will proceed against Palmer in whichever district Palmer chooses.
The complaint brings four statutory claims under the TVPRA.
Sex Trafficking
First, the complaint claims that both defendants engaged in sex trafficking. Section 1591 prohibits
knowingly . . . recruit[ing], harbor[ing], transport[ing], provid[ing], obtain[ing], advertis[ing], maintain[ing], patroniz[ing], or solicit[ing] by any means a person … knowing, … or … in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, fraud, coercion … or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act.
“Commercial sex act” means “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.” The complaint relies upon housing and the promise of future career support as things of value. Gaiman allegedly knew that Pavlovich would be forced to engage in such sex acts during her stay and Palmer allegedly acted in reckless disregard of that fact.
Forced Labor
Second, the complaint claims that both defendants engaged in forced labor. Section 1589(a) prohibits
knowingly provid[ing] or obtain[ing] the labor or services of a person … by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person … by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person … by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint.
Section 1589(b) further prohibits “knowingly benefit[ing] … from participation in a venture which has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services” by such means “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the venture has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of such means.”
According to the complaint, Gaiman intended to coerce sexual services and childcare from Pavlovich by causing her to believe that she would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if she did not perform such services. And Palmer allegedly knew or recklessly disregarded that Gaiman was forcing Pavlovich to provide sexual services.
Human Trafficking
Third, the complaint claims that both defendants engaged in human trafficking for forced labor. Section 1590 prohibits “knowingly recruit[ing], harbor[ing], transport[ing], provid[ing], or obtain[ing] by any means, any person for labor or services in violation of this chapter.”
Palmer allegedly recruited Pavlovich to come to Waiheke Island in order to obtain her forced labor. Gaiman allegedly enticed Pavlovich to provide forced labor by authorizing Palmer to offer her the live-in nanny job.
Conspiracy
Fourth, the complaint claims that both defendants conspired to violate the TVPRA’s provisions on forced labor and sex trafficking. Section 1594 prohibits “conspir[ing] with another to violate” other provisions of the TVPRA, including §§ 1589 and 1591. According to the complaing, Gaiman and Palmer conspired to obtain Pavlovich’s forced sexual services.
Tort Claims
The complaint also brings various tort claims against the defendants: assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Gaiman; negligence against Palmer. Pavlovich asks the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because they are so related to her statutory claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
The courts will, of course, have to perform a choice of law analysis to determine what law governs the tort claims. Federal courts apply the choice of law rules of the states in which they sit. Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and New York have different approaches to choice of law. But seems likely that New Zealand law will govern these claims under all of these approaches because both the conduct and the injury occurred there.
Extraterritoriality
With respect to the TVPRA claims, one issue the complaint does not address is extraterritoriality. As noted above, § 1596 provides that “the courts of the United States have extra-territorial jurisdiction over any offense (or any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense) under” § 1589 (forced labor), § 1590 (human trafficking for forced labor), and § 1591 (sex trafficking) if “an alleged offender is a national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” or if “an alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the alleged offender.”
Palmer is a U.S. national, and so the TVPRA clearly applies extraterritorially to her. Gaiman, on the other hand, is a U.K. national. The complaint alleges that he is a resident of Menomonie, Wisconsin. But it is not clear from the complaint (and I was unable otherwise to discover) whether he has been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” within the terms of the statute.
Note, however, that § 1596 refers to “an alleged offender” rather than to “the alleged offender.” This stands in contrast to § 1595 (the cause of action), which refers to “the perpetrator.” Congress’s use of the word “an” in the extraterritoriality provision suggests that the TVPRA applies extraterritorially to non-resident aliens who are involved in the same violations. Thus, § 1596 may extend the TVPRA to Gaiman even if he is not a U.S. national, permanent resident, or present in the United States simply by virtue of Palmer’s U.S. nationality.
Conclusion
The allegations in Pavlovich’s complaint are horrifying. So are the many acts of forced labor, human trafficking, and sex trafficking that occur every day in the United States and around the world that pass unnoticed by the press.
By adopting the TVPRA, and extending it extraterritorially, Congress hoped to provide a remedy for victims of such offenses. One unintended benefit of Pavlovich’s complaint may be to bring greater attention to such crimes and to the tools available to combat them.