Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[Girlstar30]

There's a new hotel coming besides Disney's Duck Pond Dump?

There sure is where it says "future commercial development" in the rendering below thats in their sales office.

I asked if there was any talks of DVC, but she said it was going to be around 8 years until the hotel is built, i said sounds like a good time frame

They're also going to let outsiders join the Artisans membership club too. The whole concept reminded me of DVC. You can live there, BUT if you dont join the club you are not eligible for the member extras of cooking, painting classes, private beach area, parr house rental, disney archives historian visits, stargazing, etc.

Pretty much all of the fun amenities aside from what the HOA covers are for eligible members only. With that being said the houses were gorgeous open concept (my favorite was an edgy cruella themed model home), they use some crystal lagoon technology that makes the oasis beach look like the Bahamas, and it was hot as HELL lol!

 

[Girlstar30]

The picture shows blurry so I circled it in red, seems like a good location here's some pics of the second model home for anyone that's interested, this is the most popular one the agent said

 

[Girlstar30]

Future hotel location circled in red

 

[Girlstar30]

I moved conversation about this to a different thread under Mousecellaneous

 

[zavandor]

That's not how I understood it. I took it to mean that you have to follow BOTH the 20 reservation rule AND the total rental being less than total dues rule. Your interpretation seems like you only would have to follow one of the two rules.

The only rule we have been given in writing said that you can have 0 rentals if you want to have over 20 reservations. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your income would have been at that point.

Then we have been told that you can be considered commercial also if you have rented out for more than your total dues for the year. Seemingly regardless of the number of reservations.

So I think we are meant to follow both rules at once, not one or the other. Unless they have come out and said that the rental vs dues comparison was being used AFTER the 20 reservation rule. Which I don't think I have seen that

As it currently stand, the official policy only mentions the 20 reservations. The criteria about renting only up to the dues has only been told to one person and only during a call. It's not been added to the policy and it's not been enforced yet, as far as we know.
It's possible that:
1) the official policy is going to be changed soon to include it
2) the official policy is not going to be changed and that rule will be enforced anyway in addition to the 20 reservations (meaning both must be breached to be considered commercial renter)
3) the official policy is not going to be changed and that rule will be enforced anyway instead of the 20 reservations (meaning if either one is breached, one is considered a commercial renter)
4) it's not going to be used at all

Regarding 4, if I remember correctly, during last year meetings Yvonne Change made an example saying that they're fine with people renting their points to recover the dues. It's very much possible that is only that, an example. It might have filtered as a policy or maybe they have evaluated it as a policy. And the person who talked with Sandy made an extra step and mispoke saying it would be a policy.

I very much doubt one can have an official policy that by law must be amended and communicated to owners when it changes, but then implement something else. That's why I think it's either 1 or 4.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Hot darn you guys I was searching for another thread and came across this. While the whole intent of the thread isnt exactly like this thread but what I thought was SUPER interesting is that this person back in 2023 got a response from MS in regards to renting and the verbiage is not exactly what I have seen said before, read it closely. If you want a small chuckle read some of the thread, you might be confused thinking you stumbled into a current thread, much of what is being talked about in 2023 is being said now in 2025. I will post below in bold what was sent by email to this poster.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/aggressive-anti-rental-email-response-from-ms.3919744/

Thank you for contacting Disney Vacation Club®.

While Members of Disney Vacation Club do have the ability to rent out Disney Vacation Club accommodations through their Membership on an occasional basis, use of Disney Vacation Club accommodations for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited. Commercial purposes include a pattern of rental activity. We view rentals of Disney Vacation Club accommodations over the Internet as a pattern of rental activity, which is prohibited under the Membership rules. Furthermore, we reserve the right not to honor any accommodations purchased or rented on the Internet. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance. Thank you and have a magical day

BIG DISCLAIMER: I am not saying this is factual or what DVC really thinks. I am just sharing. Don't shoot the messenger. Also I did not read the entire thread just skimmed a couple pages


Edit to add: I read more. Consensus was MS didn't know what they were talking about. The funniest part is the OP said "I created a franken thread that wont die" (25 pages) and here I am resurrecting it 2 years later. The last post said he had a response to his formal complaint about it... and then nothing further was posted by him on the topic. Talk about a cliff hanger...

 

[kristenrice]

Hot darn you guys I was searching for another thread and came across this. While the whole intent of the thread isnt exactly like this thread but what I thought was SUPER interesting is that this person back in 2023 got a response from MS in regards to renting and the verbiage is not exactly what I have seen said before, read it closely. If you want a small chuckle read some of the thread, you might be confused thinking you stumbled into a current thread, much of what is being talked about in 2023 is being said now in 2025. I will post below in bold what was sent by email to this poster.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/aggressive-anti-rental-email-response-from-ms.3919744/

Thank you for contacting Disney Vacation Club®.

While Members of Disney Vacation Club do have the ability to rent out Disney Vacation Club accommodations through their Membership on an occasional basis, use of Disney Vacation Club accommodations for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited. Commercial purposes include a pattern of rental activity. We view rentals of Disney Vacation Club accommodations over the Internet as a pattern of rental activity, which is prohibited under the Membership rules. Furthermore, we reserve the right not to honor any accommodations purchased or rented on the Internet. Please let us know if we may be of further assistance. Thank you and have a magical day

BIG DISCLAIMER: I am not saying this is factual or what DVC really thinks. I am just sharing. Don't shoot the messenger. Also I did not read the entire thread just skimmed a couple pages


Edit to add: I read more. Consensus was MS didn't know what they were talking about. The funniest part is the OP said "I created a franken thread that wont die" (25 pages) and here I am resurrecting it 2 years later. The last post said he had a response to his formal complaint about it... and then nothing further was posted by him on the topic. Talk about a cliff hanger...

This is a bit confusing....The letter says...

We view rentals of Disney Vacation Club accommodations over the Internet as a pattern of rental activity

OK...that's nice....have they LOOKED at the internet??? Clearly they might view rentals on the internet as a pattern of rental activity, and they say that it is prohibited....but at what consequence?? The fact that they have not acted on this in the past two years (and counting) tells me that we are still looking at potentially more idle, empty threats. Until there is concrete ACTIONS taken, this latest development appears to be more empty words put out to appease the disgruntled members. Just my opinion....

 

[Mouseforward]

As it currently stand, the official policy only mentions the 20 reservations. The criteria about renting only up to the dues has only been told to one person and only during a call. It's not been added to the policy and it's not been enforced yet, as far as we know.

I got the same response from a supervisor , I was asking different questions so I only posted what was additional info about renting all your points occasionally for a canceled reservation.

 

[xdan0920]

This is a bit confusing....The letter says...

We view rentals of Disney Vacation Club accommodations over the Internet as a pattern of rental activity

OK...that's nice....have they LOOKED at the internet??? Clearly they might view rentals on the internet as a pattern of rental activity, and they say that it is prohibited....but at what consequence?? The fact that they have not acted on this in the past two years (and counting) tells me that we are still looking at potentially more idle, empty threats. Until there is concrete ACTIONS taken, this latest development appears to be more empty words put out to appease the disgruntled members. Just my opinion....

Exactly. Empty words and nonsense.

 

[lowlight]

The lack of cohesive messaging and complete inaction except towards scaring rule abiding members is worrying, and does a disservice to all members. It makes me wonder how much of a mess DVC is behind the scenes.

 

[ocdb8r1]

I disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, I can pick up a resale contract in other timeshare systems for pennies yet they manage to show a decent profit via direct sales, so I’m not sure today’s DVC cares about resale value.
Second when resale value has crashed in the past - circa 2008 - DVC did not use ROFR to protect resale value.
Third, if DVC cared about resale value or thought they needed high resale prices to justify their high direct prices they never would have gone down the restricted resort road.
DVC makes its profit via direct sales & I very much doubt that the gorillas in the point rental market are buying direct contracts, my guess is that they’re buying resale as cheaply as they can. If they’re put out of business they’ll dump their contracts I expect, but as long as DVC can market to direct buyers by persuading them that direct is better than resale because …benefits, I don’t think a depression in resale prices will concern DVC.

First, I think you misunderstood the point of my post - the point was that DVC has little incentive to do anything regarding rentals other than the bare minimum to placate sufficient members such that there isn't widespread grief over the practice.

Second, yes, I understand you disagree with one illustration of why I believe DVC has little incentive. You don't seem to believe that resale pricing has any effect on the direct price DVC is able to charge (or that DVC doesn't care). I do not agree with the reasons you listed:

1) DVC has limited funds for ROFR - their exercise or lack thereof shows nothing about their view on whether resale pricing affects their direct sales model;
2) You site "restricted" as proof that DVC don't care about resale pricing - I disagree. They went down the restricted (and all the other "benefits of buying direct") path precisely because resale pricing otherwise cut into their direct sales. This doesn't prove they don't care about resale pricing, just that they realize they will not be able to control it and need other tools in their arsenal to minimize effect on direct pricing;
3) I agree that DVC tries to focus on diferentiating direct from resale via "benefits" - the wider the gap between resale pricing and direct pricing becomes, the greater the benefits they have to show that come with direct.
4) Regardless of whether any of the above can be proven factually, I still think this logic is disincentive for DVC to do anything more than the bare minimum as regards commercial renting.

 

[Mouseforward]

It makes me wonder how much of a mess DVC is behind the scenes.

Yup, plenty of examples

1. Ok I will merge that reservation for you vs. it takes 7 days to merge a reservation
2. Sure I will load those new points vs You have to wait and check on the account/ it can take 2 weeks
3. Reservations at villain's lair require that you are staying on points vs. they just require that you are direct

 

[Noodlez]

I know that I'm going back quite a few pages now but I've only just caught up! Can I please query the 20 reservation rule? On pages 5 and 6 it was mentioned in various ways about reservations that if you make more than 20 you must prove that none are rentals (a few people said this in various ways so I won't quote individuals). I've also heard that any above 20 may be cancelled until you have a full 12 month period without any rentals. I always assumed that this was the way it was written so I took that as fact.

The only information I have about the policy is from this https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos, but that is not what I'm reading now. What it says is that if you make more than 20 you need to prove "that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes". It doesn't say that none are rentals.

As we have established that 'some' rentals are allowed under the personal use terms, couldn't you simply say that a few of those reservations were rentals but none were commercial? The same article also states that commercial is "a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity." I don't think 2 or 3 rentals in a year of 20 reservations looks like a commercial enterprise. (Again, this isn't up to me to define, but they haven't defined it either). I appreciate that it mentions family and friends, but it doesn't mention if you're giving to them or renting to them!

I have no idea if the 2011 version is different to this, but my opinion on it isn't that if you make over 20 you must prove you haven't rented. To me it seems to be saying that if you make more than 20 you will be flagged as potentially a commercial renter and must prove that you aren't.

Someone previously on these boards (I can't remember who) advised that they were flagged for making a lot of reservations and when queried told them that they had recently purchased a lot of points and were renting out the banked ones, but that this wasn't a regular thing. Apparently, that was a good enough reason and no further action was taken. This again seems to back up the idea that more than 20 doesn't mean no rentals.

Am I reading it incorrectly, or do we have further information? I've never been close to the 20 myself but I have 6 reservations in September just travelling with one friend, so I can see how people easily go over.

 

[mkatsy]

The lack of cohesive messaging and complete inaction except towards scaring rule abiding members is worrying, and does a disservice to all members. It makes me wonder how much of a mess DVC is behind the scenes.

I’m waiting on my newest points to load. I need to make a reservation so I called MS three times, actually two calls and one chat. I got three different answers I feel like it’s the Wild Wild West over there. I ended up making a cash booking that I’ll cancel if I get my points in time.

 

[sndral]

@VGCgroupie the subject of personal/commercial use crops up here occasionally & usually generates a lot of discussion. When that post surfaced 2 years ago I wondered then if DVC was finally going to take steps to address the issue of commercial renting, but then… crickets.
In skimming that 2023 thread, however, this caught my attention - & I wonder if DVC’s new attestation of personal use is all they’ll do or if it’s just step one. They did say in Dec. that they hoped to not be having ‘this’ conversation in a year - so that’s sort of a deadline.

Getting back to the post at the beginning of this thread: It's also entirely possible that Disney will pursue a "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" strategy around rentals by sending out "reminders" to the ownership about commercial use. This would be in the hope that it would discourage at least some owners from renting. Marriott is doing this now--to add a Guest Name, the owner needs to acknowledge a no-commercial-use clause. I have to believe that discourages at least some people from renting.

 

[GoingSince1990]

I know that I'm going back quite a few pages now but I've only just caught up! Can I please query the 20 reservation rule? On pages 5 and 6 it was mentioned in various ways about reservations that if you make more than 20 you must prove that none are rentals (a few people said this in various ways so I won't quote individuals). I've also heard that any above 20 may be cancelled until you have a full 12 month period without any rentals. I always assumed that this was the way it was written so I took that as fact.

The only information I have about the policy is from this https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos, but that is not what I'm reading now. What it says is that if you make more than 20 you need to prove "that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes". It doesn't say that none are rentals.

As we have established that 'some' rentals are allowed under the personal use terms, couldn't you simply say that a few of those reservations were rentals but none were commercial? The same article also states that commercial is "a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity." I don't think 2 or 3 rentals in a year of 20 reservations looks like a commercial enterprise. (Again, this isn't up to me to define, but they haven't defined it either). I appreciate that it mentions family and friends, but it doesn't mention if you're giving to them or renting to them!

I have no idea if the 2011 version is different to this, but my opinion on it isn't that if you make over 20 you must prove you haven't rented. To me it seems to be saying that if you make more than 20 you will be flagged as potentially a commercial renter and must prove that you aren't.

Someone previously on these boards (I can't remember who) advised that they were flagged for making a lot of reservations and when queried told them that they had recently purchased a lot of points and were renting out the banked ones, but that this wasn't a regular thing. Apparently, that was a good enough reason and no further action was taken. This again seems to back up the idea that more than 20 doesn't mean no rentals.

Am I reading it incorrectly, or do we have further information? I've never been close to the 20 myself but I have 6 reservations in September just travelling with one friend, so I can see how people easily go over.

Agreed. I’m envisaging something like:
DVC: “hey, you went over 20 reservations in a 12 month period! Prove that they were all for personal use!”
Owner: “OK, yes, some were rentals , but personal use includes renting, and my total rental income was less than my total annual dues”.
DVC: “Fine, you’re free to go”.
(Of course a truly commercial operator engaged in spec renting of all of the points they owned would not be able to claim that their rental income was less than their dues).

 

[Tatebeck]

I know that I'm going back quite a few pages now but I've only just caught up! Can I please query the 20 reservation rule? On pages 5 and 6 it was mentioned in various ways about reservations that if you make more than 20 you must prove that none are rentals (a few people said this in various ways so I won't quote individuals). I've also heard that any above 20 may be cancelled until you have a full 12 month period without any rentals. I always assumed that this was the way it was written so I took that as fact.

The only information I have about the policy is from this https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos, but that is not what I'm reading now. What it says is that if you make more than 20 you need to prove "that all such reservations are for Personal Use and not for commercial purposes". It doesn't say that none are rentals.

As we have established that 'some' rentals are allowed under the personal use terms, couldn't you simply say that a few of those reservations were rentals but none were commercial? The same article also states that commercial is "a pattern of rental activity or other occupancy by an Owner that the Board of the Association, in its reasonable discretion, could conclude constitutes a commercial enterprise or activity." I don't think 2 or 3 rentals in a year of 20 reservations looks like a commercial enterprise. (Again, this isn't up to me to define, but they haven't defined it either). I appreciate that it mentions family and friends, but it doesn't mention if you're giving to them or renting to them!

I have no idea if the 2011 version is different to this, but my opinion on it isn't that if you make over 20 you must prove you haven't rented. To me it seems to be saying that if you make more than 20 you will be flagged as potentially a commercial renter and must prove that you aren't.

Someone previously on these boards (I can't remember who) advised that they were flagged for making a lot of reservations and when queried told them that they had recently purchased a lot of points and were renting out the banked ones, but that this wasn't a regular thing. Apparently, that was a good enough reason and no further action was taken. This again seems to back up the idea that more than 20 doesn't mean no rentals.

Am I reading it incorrectly, or do we have further information? I've never been close to the 20 myself but I have 6 reservations in September just travelling with one friend, so I can see how people easily go over.

Well technically, that is not exactly what it says, so it's best to be careful what you put in quotes. It actually says (with emphasis bolded by me)

"the DVC Member shall be required to establish, to the satisfaction of the Board, that all of the reservations made by the DVC Member in such 12-month period are for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member’s family and/or the DVC Member’s friends (collectively, “Personal Use”), and not for commercial purposes"

The rule says that you have to prove to their satisfaction that every reservation of the first 20 were used by the member, family of the member, or friends of the member, which all falls under their personal use, AND that it was not for commercial purposes. It doesn't matter if your goal was profit or not, it also has to be proven that they were used by you, your family or your friends. This particular rule doesn't use the same language that other places do which sometimes states or infers that some renting is ok. It specifically states who is allowed to use the first 20 reservations

If you want to bank your ability to use your membership on being able to convince DVC that a random person on the internet that you had never talked to before renting them DVC points counts as a personal "friend" then go ahead. But I personally will try to avoid being in that position. If renter = friend then the entire first part part of the clause is useless and the only thing you would have to prove is that it was not commercial instead of proving who used it and that it was not commercial. So because they did put the first part of the clause in there, it leads members to infer that for this rule renters are not "friends"

 

[Brianstl]

First, I think you misunderstood the point of my post - the point was that DVC has little incentive to do anything regarding rentals other than the bare minimum to placate sufficient members such that there isn't widespread grief over the practice.

Second, yes, I understand you disagree with one illustration of why I believe DVC has little incentive. You don't seem to believe that resale pricing has any effect on the direct price DVC is able to charge (or that DVC doesn't care). I do not agree with the reasons you listed:

1) DVC has limited funds for ROFR - their exercise or lack thereof shows nothing about their view on whether resale pricing affects their direct sales model;
2) You site "restricted" as proof that DVC don't care about resale pricing - I disagree. They went down the restricted (and all the other "benefits of buying direct") path precisely because resale pricing otherwise cut into their direct sales. This doesn't prove they don't care about resale pricing, just that they realize they will not be able to control it and need other tools in their arsenal to minimize effect on direct pricing;
3) I agree that DVC tries to focus on diferentiating direct from resale via "benefits" - the wider the gap between resale pricing and direct pricing becomes, the greater the benefits they have to show that come with direct.
4) Regardless of whether any of the above can be proven factually, I still think this logic is disincentive for DVC to do anything more than the bare minimum as regards commercial renting.

I think direct pricing has a bigger impact on the resale price than the opposite way around.

 

[Cyberc1978]

As previously mentioned I need to see some action before i believe something new is happening.

For now it’s all talk and no action - except for the new checkbox.

 

[CarolynFH]

As previously mentioned I need to see some action before i believe something new is happening.

For now it’s all talk and no action - except for the new checkbox.

What action do you expect or want to see?