Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[xdan0920]

What is? That DVC management who provided me with the governing document that the POS says exists and has been adopted is not valid?

The secret policy.

 

[Mouseforward]

Absolutely none of this is adding up.

And Goofy can talk but Pluto can not but they are both dogs...so there is another Disney mystery we may never solve

 

[Sandisw]

The point is, Member Services is telling members different things. The CM I spoke to explicitly said, there is no threshold. She also pointed to that document as the current policy regarding renting.

Some CMs are telling people no renting is acceptable.

Some are saying only to friends/family.

You claim to have gotten information that they are somehow factoring in profit? But only once you reach 20 reservations in a 12 month time frame.

Absolutely none of this is adding up.

It’s not adding up because the frontline CMs have being given specific scripts of what to say.

This is why I asked for the offical policy on record and why I did several back and forth to seek clarifications and took this beyond MS.

The notion about dues was before I got that the offical policy of 2011 still existed.

I did speculate how I think they can work hand in hand….but admitted that it was just that.

IMO, It certainly telling what the response was in reference to a rule change about only renting to family and friend.

Owners can, as always, rent to anyone as long as it’s occasional and doesn’t become a pattern.

Only documents that I have that come close to defining what that might mean for my pre RIv resorts is the 2011 policy.

What has been a theme throughout is that the documents I have been given explain it all.

So, the 2011 policy remains the official policy as to what constitutes commercial enterprise, practice and purpose.

And, all we can do is wait to see if they decide to update that, or any other documents in the future or wait for reports on how they are enforcing things when it comes to commercial purposes to see if it is any different than in the past, which was to only cancel reservations above 20.

 

[Sandisw]

The secret policy.

It’s not secret. You can request it. I simply do not want to get into legal trouble posting all 4 pages of it online in a public forum when I have asked DVC three times to give me permission to do so and they have not.

I have shared specific clauses I felt comfortable sharing.

ETA: I do hope others have actually requested and will feel comfortable sharing it.

 

[xdan0920]

What has been a theme throughout is that the documents I have been given explain it all.

I have shared specific clauses I felt comfortable sharing.

But not the relevant passage. It’s like some state secret. This isn’t a classified document, it’s just a timeshare document that we all have access to. Send it to me and I’ll post it, along with my full name and contact info in case DVC wants to arrest me.

I’m going to leave it here though, I don’t want to run afoul of any rules.

 

[lowlight]

And we know the 2011 policy is still the offical policy of what constitutes commercial purposes.

I have asked if there is anything else because it says that shouldn’t be seen as an exhaustive list and so far, I am being told there is not.

I guess you and I are looking at this completely differently. I think the 2011 policy doesn't need updating because it's already very, very specifically telling you that what constitutes commercial purposes is NOT specific and will never, ever be spelled out in an exhaustive list. Instead, here is one thing that definitely is, the rest is subjective. So you're asking if there are any more acts written in stone as constituting commercial purposes, but they don't need to say yes because it's not an exhaustive list. You are asking for something that doesn't exist, never existed, and will never exist. They gave themselves the power from day 1 to use a reasonable determination and not pigeonhole themselves into a few categories. Kind of like many states with their reckless driving statute. Do X? Jail. Do Y? Jail. Do Z? Jail. (X is commercial renting). A, B, C (also commercial renting) also mean jail, but not spelled out in in the statute. Driving backwards, blindfolded, and upside down with my hands on the accelerator and steering with my feet is...jail...but not spelled out in the statute because no list can ever be exhaustive because people be dumb in ways you can't predict, you know?

And so far, their interpretation of the 2011 policy has been to flag accounts when they got over 20, have discussions with owners, and if the owner didn’t satisfy to DVC they weren’t commercial, have reservations over 20 canceled but first 20 were left alone.

You say it's their interpretation of the 2011 policy, but really, it's just what they've chosen to enforce (or not, really) since 2011. I don't see how any higher enforcement they do tomorrow would require them personally notifying you of the threshold they've decided to land on, since it's already baked into the wording. You seem to think they HAVE to tell you exactly what they are enforcing, and I think they already did- what they decide in their reasonable determination.

 

[achinforsomebacon]

It’s not secret. You can request it. I simply do not want to get into legal trouble posting all 4 pages of it online in a public forum when I have asked DVC three times to give me permission to do so and they have not.

I have shared specific clauses I felt comfortable sharing.

ETA: I do hope others have actually requested and will feel comfortable sharing it.

If you've asked three times and didn't get a response, seems like you gave them every opportunity to say no. Maybe a better course would be to say "I plan on sharing this information with other owners in a public forum in X days unless I'm told otherwise".

 

[VGCgroupie]

If you've asked three times and didn't get a response, seems like you gave them every opportunity to say no. Maybe a better course would be to say "I plan on sharing this information with other owners in a public forum in X days unless I'm told otherwise".

That is a lot of responsibility to put on one person who owes none of us anything. She doesnt know us personally and shouldn't take any risks to share a document with us. If DVC was wanting everyone to easily have this info it would be easy to obtain and/or they would've just said yes. I am willing to bet virtually none of the posters here are going to go to the trouble of requesting the document by certified mail. (I know I havent)

 

[Sandisw]

If you've asked three times and didn't get a response, seems like you gave them every opportunity to say no. Maybe a better course would be to say "I plan on sharing this information with other owners in a public forum in X days unless I'm told otherwise".

Based on advice I have been given, I would not do it without express consent.

Sorry.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

They also confirmed that any policy changes will be communicated with owners.

And, we now know that the terms of the POS in reference to patterns is still the focus.

What I can say, after all the back and forth, the big takeaway is that the 2011 policy is what is the offical definition of what constitutes commercial…the pattern.. and that no other documents or definitions exist at this time.

The T&Cs (shared by @xdan0920 immediately below) are absolutely an official document that is communicated with owners each and every time they touch a reservation. I believe you that the 2011 policy is still in effect, but it doesn’t supersede the POS mandating that all use must be personal use and not commercial, and those new T&Cs are clear that personal use cannot be regular or frequent rentals.

The CM I spoke to today said the document linked below super cedes anything else. So there is that.

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_175374314896910&key=00b5bd2c76e9aae8d89a91cb711b0736&libId=mdnpdsjj0103khma000ULeexz2qf6&loc=https://www.disboards.com/threads/commerical-use-policy-update-new-thread.3969816/page-44&v=1&opt=true&optExText=false&out=https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/DVC-Terms-and-Conditions-2025-5-15-25.pdf&ref=https://www.disboards.com/threads/commerical-use-policy-update-new-thread.3969816/page-45&title=Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread! | Page 44 | DIS Disney Discussion Forums - DISboards.com&txt=https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/media/dvc/DVC-Terms-and-Conditions-2025-5-15-25.pdf

To add, the current governing document for commercial purpose is the 2011 policy

As well as POS and the new T&Cs agreed to by members each time they book.

I do want to add one thing about my interpretation of the actions that DVC can take for reservations before you hit 20.

Since they have defined it one way in the policy, which is everything above 20, in order to enforce below 20, those additional metrics or rules to define commercial purpose another way are supposed to be in the governing documents somewhere.

This is where it would be helpful to have the actual email from DVC (I completely respect your right not to share it, but I also think it would be critical to see exactly how they crafted their response)—terms and conditions are absolutely documents that govern our use of our points, as well as the POS the T&Cs are interpreting.

That is a lot of responsibility to put on one person who owes none of us anything. She doesnt know us personally and shouldn't take any risks to share a document with us. If DVC was wanting everyone to easily have this info it would be easy to obtain and/or they would've just said yes. I am willing to bet virtually none of the posters here are going to go to the trouble of requesting the document by certified mail. (I know I havent)

I agree it’s not Sandi’s responsibility to share her private communications with DVC. There’s plenty of stuff I think I’m legally entitled to do but wouldn’t do because I don’t want to risk my relationship with The Mouse.

I haven’t requested documents because I feel less than 5% of my points and less than one rental per year is not “regularly or frequently” but if I was renting more than 2-3x a year, I would be wanting written assurances from Disney directly and I wouldn’t be relying on anything transpiring on this boards (whether an anonymous lawyer or mod or someone claiming to speak with the ghost of Walt Disney) or even from a random MS CM (unless I had a statement from them in writing that my rental practices were kosher).

 

[Sandisw]

The T&Cs (shared by @xdan0920 immediately below) are absolutely an official document that is communicated with owners each and every time they touch a reservation. I believe you that the 2011 policy is still in effect, but it doesn’t supersede the POS mandating that all use must be personal use and not commercial, and those new T&Cs are clear that personal use cannot be regular or frequent rentals.



As well as POS and the new T&Cs agreed to by members each time they book.

This is where it would be helpful to have the actual email from DVC (I completely respect your right not to share it, but I also think it would be critical to see exactly how they crafted their response)—terms and conditions are absolutely documents that govern our use of our points, as well as the POS the T&Cs are interpreting.


I agree it’s not Sandi’s responsibility to share her private communications with DVC. There’s plenty of stuff I think I’m legally entitled to do but wouldn’t do because I don’t want to risk my relationship with The Mouse.

I haven’t requested documents because I feel less than 5% of my points and less than one rental per year is not “regularly or frequently” but if I was renting more than 2-3x a year, I would be wanting written assurances from Disney directly and I wouldn’t be relying on anything transpiring on this boards (whether an anonymous lawyer or mod or someone claiming to speak with the ghost of Walt Disney) or even from a random MS CM (unless I had a statement from them in writing that my rental practices were kosher).

Not saying that the T and C is not offical. They are…but nothing in that documents conflicts with the 2011 policy and even states to refer to the governing documents.

That was my point. The 2011 policy is an additional governing document and DVC management has confirmed to me that it still is the offical policy.

For the record, I do not rent my points. I have only involved myself in this because it’s important to me that whatever DVC decides to do matches what information I have been given by those I have consulted who are well versed in FL timeshare laws and timeshare contracts, including my DVC one.

From the information I have, DVC owners who are accused of violating the commercial purpose clause of the POS because they have shown a pattern of rentals that rise to the level that they can reasonably conclude of being a commercial enterprise, purpose or practice are entitled to know what actions caused them to be in violations, and those violations can’t conflict with written policies.

At this point, all we can do is see what else DVC does and if enforcement is going to be different than how it was in the past.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Not saying that the T and C is not offical. They are…but nothing in that documents conflicts with the 2011 policy and even states to refer to the governing documents.

We agree. The updated T&C is simply Disney giving additional information about how it defines Personal
Use in the POS and nothing in there contradicts the 2011 policy.

For the record, I do not rent my points. I have only involved myself in this because it’s important to me that whatever DVC decides to do matches what information I have been given by those I have consulted who are well versed in FL timeshare laws and timeshare contracts, including my DVC one.

I think it was smart of you to consult with DVC directly and also FL barred timeshare lawyers who specifically know DVC documents (though less critical for those of us who don’t rent more than once or twice a decade).
I think Disney has been clear it doesn’t want people renting regularly but I am increasingly dubious they will do anything to enforce it but if they plan to use “over 20 reservations means no rentals allowed at all” as their primary enforcement tool (which I believe is what you believe they are telling you), it’s terrible for members like my family so I won’t be buying more points unless we get some sort of statement clarifying that.

From the information I have, DVC owners who are accused of violating the commercial purpose clause of the POS because they have shown a pattern of rentals that rise to the level that they can reasonably conclude of being a commercial enterprise, purpose or practice are entitled to know what actions caused them to be in violations, and those violations can’t conflict with written policies.

I don’t have a strong feeling on whether or not members are entitled to know specific actions beyond pointing to which POS provision was breached, but I think Disney would say “we told you not frequently or regularly, you agreed to T&Cs, and we see you have been frequently and/or regularly renting points…if you can prove these are not rentals and we have it wrong let us know, with proof.”

I’ll say it again,..until we get something from DVC that they are enforcing a definition for commercial purposes that is outside of what the 2011 policy is, or the language related to transfers, all one can decide their own interpretations and understanding.

I agree, but just because our own interpretations and understanding may be honest and even reasonable (based on the information we’ve been given) it doesn’t mean that Disney’s interpretation wouldn’t allow them to punish commercial renting, so long as it’s reasonable.

My current interpretation is “who knows what Disney will do, but they have claimed the right to totally lock out my membership if I have a 21st reservation because exactly one of my first 20 was a rental and they’re telling members that’s the primary enforcement tool—so I’m going to avoid acquiring more points and think carefully about whether or not I want to get rid of some points by selling a contract instead of banking them.”

 

[Sandisw]

I guess you and I are looking at this completely differently. I think the 2011 policy doesn't need updating because it's already very, very specifically telling you that what constitutes commercial purposes is NOT specific and will never, ever be spelled out in an exhaustive list. Instead, here is one thing that definitely is, the rest is subjective. So you're asking if there are any more acts written in stone as constituting commercial purposes, but they don't need to say yes because it's not an exhaustive list. You are asking for something that doesn't exist, never existed, and will never exist. They gave themselves the power from day 1 to use a reasonable determination and not pigeonhole themselves into a few categories. Kind of like many states with their reckless driving statute. Do X? Jail. Do Y? Jail. Do Z? Jail. (X is commercial renting). A, B, C (also commercial renting) also mean jail, but not spelled out in in the statute. Driving backwards, blindfolded, and upside down with my hands on the accelerator and steering with my feet is...jail...but not spelled out in the statute because no list can ever be exhaustive because people be dumb in ways you can't predict, you know?



You say it's their interpretation of the 2011 policy, but really, it's just what they've chosen to enforce (or not, really) since 2011. I don't see how any higher enforcement they do tomorrow would require them personally notifying you of the threshold they've decided to land on, since it's already baked into the wording. You seem to think they HAVE to tell you exactly what they are enforcing, and I think they already did- what they decide in their reasonable determination.

What I said is that DVC has always interpreted and enforced the 2011 policy one way.

When they did enforce they canceled only what was above 20 and left the first 20 alpne and let them remain as valid reservations .

Now, can they use other definitions of what constitutes a pattern?

Sure, but if an owners asks if there are any others that might be in play and they say no, but rules can change, then it means as of today, there is not.

It’s simple…if DVC intends to come up with different definitions of what a pattern looks like, we will know because we will see updated changes to policy or we will get reports of enforcement that has cancellations happening for owners who didn’t meet the threshold.

And, when enforcement reports do come, we will get the specifics of what DVC has landed on because those owners will be able to share what DVC told them they did that got them in trouble.

 

[Sandisw]

We agree. The updated T&C is simply Disney giving additional information about how it defines Personal
Use in the POS and nothing in there contradicts the 2011 policy.

I think it was smart of you to consult with DVC directly and also FL barred timeshare lawyers who specifically know DVC documents (though less critical for those of us who don’t rent more than once or twice a decade).
I think Disney has been clear it doesn’t want people renting regularly but I am increasingly dubious they will do anything to enforce it but if they plan to use “over 20 reservations means no rentals allowed at all” as their primary enforcement tool (which I believe is what you believe they are telling you), it’s terrible for members like my family so I won’t be buying more points unless we get some sort of statement clarifying that.

I don’t have a strong feeling on whether or not members are entitled to know specific actions beyond pointing to which POS provision was breached, but I think Disney would say “we told you not frequently or regularly, you agreed to T&Cs, and we see you have been frequently and/or regularly renting points…if you can prove these are not rentals and we have it wrong let us know, with proof.”

I agree, but just because our own interpretations and understanding may be honest and even reasonable (based on the information we’ve been given) it doesn’t mean that Disney’s interpretation wouldn’t allow them to punish commercial renting, so long as it’s reasonable.

My current interpretation is “who knows what Disney will do, but they have claimed the right to totally lock out my membership if I have a 21st reservation because exactly one of my first 20 was a rental and they’re telling members that’s the primary enforcement tool—so I’m going to avoid acquiring more points and think carefully about whether or not I want to get rid of some points by selling a contract instead of banking them.”

Just to clarify, the 2011 policy does not say you will be locked out at the 21st.

It states that if you have or want to make more than 20, and you can’t satisfy that the first 20 are for you and family and friends, then the reservations in excess of 20…get canceled if booked or won’t be allowed to be booked.

If they feel you have satisfied the criteria to have more than 20, then you get to keep more than 20.

Obviously, this policy, as written can hit larger point owners sooner than it would small point owners

Heck I have 900 points and I almost always have 12 to 18 reservations booked as we do a lot of split stays.

The thing about the T and C though is that frequently or regularly is not defined in terms of practice or that DVC would be using a reasonable level to say it’s frequent or regular

Even the word occasional can be seen differently by all of us and I think DVC wants it that way.

If not, what would prevent DVC from canceling reservations anytime they wanted?

That’s why they adopted the policy and changed language years ago…such as not being able to be an associate on my than four memberships and when they went to the one transfer in or out

While you never know, I just believe that if DVC decides it wants to enforce something much more limiting than what they have officially put into a policy, they will update the offical documents.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I still need to see some enforcement before I can conclude what we are seeing is something new.

For all we know it could all just be scare tactics to get the regular Mr & Ms Doe to not rent their points.

The 20 reservations rule have been in place since the dawn of time, even back then only very few reports of enforcements is known. Then come 14 years ago and the rule were updated to include all memberships including the ones members are associates on - I personally haven’t heard of that being enforced across memberships including associates. But just because I haven’t heard anything doesn’t mean they didn’t.

I would need to see at least one of the things below come true to conclude enforcement has started:

1. Report's on SoMe about cancelled reservations
2. Much less rentals being available by brokers
3. Reports by owners saying they were contacted by DVC
4. Communications from DVC

I’m not seeing #4 to come true any time soon, sort of the same with #3 but #1&2 I would expect to see if something new happened. Just because we saw an increase of contracts listed for sale doesn’t mean anything is happening, it could be, but could also just be one or more large points owners/LLC changing their positions in the marked.

 

[eandt]

Except, I am not acting as the be all and end all of this.

I have read the 2008 policy, and I see no way that it says, 20 reservations must be reached to be deemed commercial. Rather, it says, once you reach 20 an investigation will be or in this case since I assume DVC has been derelict in its duties, should be opened.

It then clearly states…

“This policy is not intended, and shall not be deemed, either (i) to constitute an exclusive act or statement by the Association regarding any breach of the commercial activity prohibitions set forth in the Declaration of Condominium and Membership Agreement, or (ii) to be an exhaustive list of all activities that shall be deemed to be commercial activity. Accordingly, the Association reserves the right to promulgate such additional rules or to take such additional actions or measures as it deems appropriate with respect to any breach of such prohibitions.”

The issue I have with Sandi, and others, is that they then attempt to take their interpretation of this policy and make it fact.

So sell 21 rentals and find out

 

[AnnaKristoff2013]

And I think they’ll contact the owner for more information before they cancel any reservations,

I wouldn’t bet the bank on that. When has Disney ever “contacted a customer” to discuss when they’ve thought that rules were being violated before penalizing? They certainly didn’t contact all the third party tour guides to “discuss” before trespassing them.

 

[Cyberc1978]

I wouldn’t bet the bank on that. When has Disney ever “contacted a customer” to discuss when they’ve thought that rules were being violated before penalizing? They certainly didn’t contact all the third party tour guides to “discuss” before trespassing them.

Maybe I’m naive but that was Disney - here we are talking about DVC. I know many of us including me is saying Disney when it’s supposed to be DVC.
It might all be semantics saying Disney or DVC but with DVC we have a membership, for the tour guides they were supposed to be a paying customer. With a membership I would say it’s decent customer service to contact a member before acting upon something you think is in violation - maybe everything is on the up and up.

 

[xdan0920]

So sell 21 rentals and find out

If I did that, it would raise my lifetime rental total to, 21...

 

[lowlight]

Never mind can’t post the site.