Picture this: a young woman lands her dream job in New York City. She’s thrilled and ready for the adventure ahead. However, after a few weeks, she learns she will work directly with the CEO. Initially, it seems promising, but the role turns out drastically different. She finds herself coerced and forced into the position of a personal assistant, enduring horrific abuse, including rape, all while remaining on the payroll.

This scenario epitomizes human trafficking. For over two decades, the United Nations has used the Palermo Protocol to clarify this issue. However, we continue to struggle in both addressing and preventing trafficking, primarily because we hesitate to name it outright.

Consequently, individuals like the hundreds I’ve represented in the Human Trafficking Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School — not to mention my hypothetical assistant — have been trafficked, often unnoticed, and without substantial discussion surrounding it.

Recently, the BBC aired a documentary focused on Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Fayed, who was romantically linked to the late Princess Diana. This film delves into the disturbing accounts of over 20 women who have reportedly suffered at the hands of Al-Fayed, including allegations of rape and sexual assault.

The women detailed in the BBC documentary were reportedly victims of human trafficking, with Harrods department store serving as a backdrop for these acts. The reporting indicated that the store not only failed to intervene but was also complicit in concealing the abuse. Harrods offered an apology but did not accept accountability for the role it played, instead casting the blame solely on Al-Fayed.

The BBC’s Oversight on Al-Fayed’s Actions

According to the Palermo Protocol, trafficking in persons involves “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of individuals by means of force or coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, misuse of power, exploitation of vulnerability, or the exchange of payments to gain consent from a person in control of another person for exploitation.”

This definition highlights the organized and deliberate nature of trafficking, which is distinctly different from isolated exploitation incidents.

While the BBC did share numerous women’s stories in its documentary, it unfortunately failed to label the incidents as human trafficking. Consequently, this missed opportunity to reveal the extensive sexual exploitation linked to powerful institutions diminishes the gravity of what these women faced and limits our pursuit of justice on their behalf.

This omission is more than just a wording issue; it obscures the systemic dimension of trafficking and overlooks the networks and strategies traffickers employ to exploit vulnerable people, allowing those who contribute to these crimes to evade accountability.

A significant fallout from this error is that narratives of exploitation often devolve into “he said/she said” accounts. When media portrayals simplify trafficking to “a complicated relationship” or depict it as the wrongdoing of isolated individuals, they fail to capture the horrifying complexity of the crime.

This reductionist perspective shifts attention to the victim’s personal agency, overshadowing the broader narrative of organized and systematic abuse.

Such framing misleads the public and undermines efforts to combat trafficking by neglecting the multifaceted systems traffickers depend on. It completely disregards the role of accomplices—drivers, security staff, human resources, healthcare providers, financial institutions, and corrupt officials—all complicit when they remain silent.

To clarify, Harrods did far more than simply ignore the situation.

The Epstein Settlements Showcase the Role of Accomplices in Human Trafficking

The settlements from 2023 related to Jeffrey Epstein’s financial backers highlight the vital need to acknowledge the accomplices that facilitate human trafficking. Epstein depended on major banks to fund his trafficking operations, using their resources to manage and hide the money he used to exploit many victims. The settlements ultimately held these banks responsible, but this accountability came much too late.

For an extended period, media coverage of Epstein’s crimes often concentrated on his interactions with victims, downplaying the intricate web that allowed his trafficking activities to thrive. Full recognition of his trafficking only materialized through legal actions.

A network has surfaced, exposing many involved parties.

Additionally, the incorrect use of terminology contributes to a cycle of misunderstanding and indifference. The phrase “human trafficking” invokes a sense of urgency and recognition of a serious violation of human rights that necessitates a thorough response. When this expression is omitted from conversations, the immediate need to tackle the fundamental issues and extensive systems supporting trafficking is lost.

The media play a significant role in influencing public perception and policy actions.

Recently, Sean “Diddy” Combs faced indictments for human trafficking in the United States. This is crucial not only for the potential justice for the women reportedly harmed by him but also because the legal system has identified the issue accurately.

By correctly categorizing the survivors associated with Al-Fayed as victims of trafficking and clarifying the organized structures behind it, media outlets can rally for comprehensive actions against this crime. This effort should include holding accountable not just the visible offenders but also those who assist and benefit from the trafficking operation.

The young woman in the earlier scenario was surrounded by coworkers who had the option to either aid her or enable the CEO’s exploitation. We must not, as seen in the BBC documentary, disregard the decisions of those who make human trafficking possible.

Bridgette A. Carr, ’02, serves as a clinical professor of law and leads the Human Trafficking Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School. She is also affiliated with the Center for Positive Organizations at the Ross School of Business at U-M. The views expressed above are her own and do not reflect those of the law school.