DVC T &C Personal Use - Only Thread to Discuss.

[mkatsy]

I think they could add a simple check box to online check in and if one doesn’t do that, have guests check it at the front desk.

Owners, guest of owner, or leasee who has paid the owner for this reservation.

And, DVC can simply ask for owners to send rental contracts to them…and while sure, you might have some renters who might be willing to lie they didn’t pay, I’d bet that there would be a good majority who would not.

Thst still wouldn’t stop DVC from monitoring…but like all rules, sometimes its about keeping honest people honest as no rule will keep those bent on working around it from finding a way.

I went back and read the very first POS for OKW and you had to submit your contract to rent and it had to contain a clause that your guest would be bound by the same T&C as the owner. If your guest arrived without the contract having been submitted, your guest would be required to sign a waiver at the front desk acknowledging that they must follow the same rules as the owner. I’m sure that as the club grew it became cumbersome, especially because internet use was in its early stages. From the first day the doors opened they did allow renting, but not commercial renting, and they get to define commercial.

 

[muppets3d]

It's all meaningless until Disney does something other than making us click a checkbox. Maybe they're just waiting until enough of the people they're watching click those checkboxes for known commercial uses (in other words, they lie) and then the hammer falls. Who knows.

They have about 5 months by their own admission.

 

[mkatsy]

It's all meaningless until Disney does something other than making us click a checkbox. Maybe they're just waiting until enough of the people they're watching click those checkboxes for known commercial uses (in other words, they lie) and then the hammer falls. Who knows.

They have about 5 months by their own admission.

It would probably take 11 months, because they have to complete the transaction for it to be fraud. The commercial rooms are booked at 8:00:05 so the guests on property today are in rooms booked without the checkbox 11 months ago.

 

[Mouseforward]

It would probably take 11 months, because they have to complete the transaction for it to be fraud. The commercial rooms are booked at 8:00:05 so the guests on property today are in rooms booked without the checkbox 11 months ago.

LOL , there’s zero chance of it being fraud.

At best, Disney can claim your in violation your contract and terminate your membership.

The entire checkbox doesn’t really make sense because they defined a renting rarely and infrequently as personal use. And then at this point, it’s left to us to interpret what rarely or frequent means in this context.

Now, if they would’ve said ,in an checkbox “are you renting or planning to rent this for someone else outside your household “ that would’ve made sense. But that would have been too simple for DVC.

 

[lowlight]

It's all meaningless until Disney does something other than making us click a checkbox. Maybe they're just waiting until enough of the people they're watching click those checkboxes for known commercial uses (in other words, they lie) and then the hammer falls. Who knows.

They have about 5 months by their own admission.

They haven’t done anything to renters, but I know within the last two years they’ve gone after some bots. They were successful at first, but the scammers found ways around it of course. Maybe they realize the two problems are entangled and want to deal a death blow.

 

[muppets3d]

It would probably take 11 months, because they have to complete the transaction for it to be fraud. The commercial rooms are booked at 8:00:05 so the guests on property today are in rooms booked without the checkbox 11 months ago.

Well the checkbox is just a new procedure, these terms have always existed as part of the contract. They don't really have to wait for those folks to check in. Honestly, they could have been getting rid of renting all along if they really cared to. I personally think that they're just now taking notice because bookings are soft and they are looking under couch cushions for pennies they're leaving behind.

They haven’t done anything to renters, but I know within the last two years they’ve gone after some bots. They were successful at first, but the scammers found ways around it of course. Maybe they realize the two problems are entangled and want to deal a death blow.

That's the thing about bots, it's a moving target for sure.

 

[Brianstl]

I really don’t think they plan to go after people that rent out rooms on their own on boards like this occasionally. I do think that they not only want to stop people who buy contracts as business, but stop anyone from using third party brokers like David’s and the DVC Rental Store. The latter might be hard for them to do, but they hate when companies like those two make money off them. They always come to view them as stealing money that should be theirs.

 

[Mouseforward]

I really don’t think they plan to go after people that rent out rooms on their own on boards like this occasionally. I do think that they not only want to stop people who buy contracts as business, but stop anyone from using third party brokers like David’s and the DVC Rental Store. The latter might be hard for them to do, but they hate when companies like those two make money off them. They always come to view them as stealing money that should be theirs.

Based on the language and the reference to not only renting, but buying and selling resale contracts for that purpose in the updates - I think they suspect that buying stripping selling is going on with the rental companies and that’s their target. The updated TOS seems targeted very specifically to that behavior..

 

[muppets3d]

I really don’t think they plan to go after people that rent out rooms on their own on boards like this occasionally. I do think that they not only want to stop people who buy contracts as business, but stop anyone from using third party brokers like David’s and the DVC Rental Store. The latter might be hard for them to do, but they hate when companies like those two make money off them. They always come to view them as stealing money that should be theirs.

I think it's reasonable to expect that arms-length rentals like using a broker to rent points won't be around much longer, when Disney drops the hammer. Like you said, Disney doesn't like other companies using their name and making money off of their product.

 

[mkatsy]

LOL , there’s zero chance of it being fraud.

At best, Disney can claim your in violation your contract and terminate your membership.

The entire checkbox doesn’t really make sense because they defined a renting rarely and infrequently as personal use. And then at this point, it’s left to us to interpret what rarely or frequent means in this context.

Now, if they would’ve said ,in an checkbox “are you renting or planning to rent this for someone else outside your household “ that would’ve made sense. But that would have been too simple for DVC.

Deception would be a better choice of words. I don’t mean to suggest that it is a criminal offense to check the box.

 

[Brianstl]

Based on the language and the reference to not only renting, but buying and selling resale contracts for that purpose in the updates - I think they suspect that buying stripping selling is going on with the rental companies and that’s their target. The updated TOS seems targeted very specifically to that behavior..

I don’t think they just want to stop companies like that from stripping contracts for rental, they want to scare away any member from using them under any circumstances. It is probably only a short matter of time until Disney follows suit of other timeshare companies and starts their own thing where you can sell your points back to them if Disney wants them at way below market rate and they can make the money off them.

 

[Kingkonig]

I think it's reasonable to expect that arms-length rentals like using a broker to rent points won't be around much longer, when Disney drops the hammer. Like you said, Disney doesn't like other companies using their name and making money off of their product.

I think that may be why the “World of DVC” rebranded recently. They’re still using Disney’s name on the subsidiaries, but not the parent company

 

[Cyberc1978]

They haven’t done anything to renters, but I know within the last two years they’ve gone after some bots. They were successful at first, but the scammers found ways around it of course. Maybe they realize the two problems are entangled and want to deal a death blow.

oh I never heard of them going after bots and what's that about the scammers DVC going after?

 

[Cyberc1978]

I really don’t think they plan to go after people that rent out rooms on their own on boards like this occasionally. I do think that they not only want to stop people who buy contracts as business, but stop anyone from using third party brokers like David’s and the DVC Rental Store. The latter might be hard for them to do, but they hate when companies like those two make money off them. They always come to view them as stealing money that should be theirs.

I think it's reasonable to expect that arms-length rentals like using a broker to rent points won't be around much longer, when Disney drops the hammer. Like you said, Disney doesn't like other companies using their name and making money off of their product.

I do think as long as owners are allowed to rent, those companies will be around - maybe they won't be renting their own points, but owners can use them as they originally was intended to do. They match renter and owner and take a cut of the money.

 

[Tatebeck]

I would definitely be happy if they stopped rental sites from buying, stripping, and flipping contracts. That is 100% commercial activity I don't think anyone could argue against that, so they should not be able to own/use their own points in that capacity.

I don't think the rental sites are going anywhere, unless DVC takes over finding matches for members needing to rent points or offers a lot more trade in point options with better values.

If they are prevented from owning points to rent then hopefully they increase payouts to members to help meet the high rental demand they have created, making it better for the normal members

 

[lowlight]

People need to remember how hard Disney went after 3rd party tour guides, and the money involved there was pennies on the dollar compared to DVC. There's enough lawyers in this thread to comment whether or not it's ok for 3rd party websites to use "DVC XYZ" as part of their name branding, but I'd not feel good about it right now.

 

[muppets3d]

People need to remember how hard Disney went after 3rd party tour guides, and the money involved there was pennies on the dollar compared to DVC. There's enough lawyers in this thread to comment whether or not it's ok for 3rd party websites to use "DVC XYZ" as part of their name branding, but I'd not feel good about it right now.

Talk about a hammer drop, that one came like a thief in the night.

 

[Tatebeck]

If I remember correctly, Disney does not own/have control of the DVC initials. That's why most sites can have the initials, or can have vacation club in the name, but I don't think I've seen one that has the full "Disney vacation club" in the name. They just say that they help members of Disney vacation club while saying that they are not Disney vacation club

 

[lowlight]

If I remember correctly, Disney does not own/have control of the DVC initials. That's why most sites can have the initials, or can have vacation club in the name, but I don't think I've seen one that has the full "Disney vacation club" in the name. They just say that they help members of Disney vacation club while saying that they are not Disney vacation club

You are right, I think. I just checked, and dvcrequest.com is "David's vacation club rentals", so that's a smart way to get around it I guess.

oh I never heard of them going after bots and what's that about the scammers DVC going after?

The closest to a booking bot in terms of how it would work is the "availability tools" that were around a few years ago. They went after many of the "availability tools" for excessive API requests, and they shut down many of the dining/experience bots as well. There's one or two left that use a loophole, but they are on borrowed time I'm sure.

 

[GoingSince1990]

People need to remember how hard Disney went after 3rd party tour guides, and the money involved there was pennies on the dollar compared to DVC. There's enough lawyers in this thread to comment whether or not it's ok for 3rd party websites to use "DVC XYZ" as part of their name branding, but I'd not feel good about it right now.

The main reason that Disney clamped down on the third party tour guides was not money, it was because of how adept they became at abusing DAS. So much so that the first port of call on these tours was routinely the "tell them you have IBS, they'll give you a DAS" visit to City Hall, followed by the guide adeptly optimizing DAS reservations throughout the day at the expense of those who truly needed the system. Had the third party guides refrained from doing this and had stuck to helping people navigate the parks, make dining reservations, purchase and use LLMP and give advice on rides, and so on, Disney would have loved them, as they would have been helping people spend more money at Disney and still needing to buy park tickets themselves.