Just FYI, I'm not upset, and I'm not denying that Disney has every right to set up the contractual parameters for usage any way that they like. I'm a shareholder; stopping the resellers means more money in my pocket.
The reason that I posted the actual statute is to refute the post that, in response to "The vast majority shared within their circle of family and friends, if they shared at all." stated that such sharing was: "...a practice which is and was technically illegal under Florida State law and the guidelines under which the pass was sold."
That posting gives the impression that sharing theme-park passes violates Florida Law. The fact is that *giving* away a theme-park pass, whether partially-used or not, does NOT violate the law. There is no such thing as "Disney law." Disney is not a government body, they do not make laws, and no one can arrest or cite you for failing to honor the terms of your ticket purchase contract. Disney can refuse to allow you to use the ticket for entry, but that is the worst they can do to you if you show up with such a ticket, or even stand in front of the gate CM and say, "Susie, I don't want this old ticket anymore. Here, you can use it today."
The language on the verso of tickets is boilerplate, designed to allow for the strictest possible interpretation of the contractual limits on usage. Should WDW choose at times to interpret those limits in less restrictive ways, they do not lose the right to enforce the stricter limits, and to do so without add'l notice. ParkHoppers did not store ownership identification, and that meant that in reality they were valid for the admission of the bearer on a given calendar day, even though the language on the verso stated that it was, "Nontransferable; must be used by the same person on any and all days." Disney could not have enforced the no-transfer clause on those tickets had they wanted to; they had no proof of the identity of the original user of a given ticket. Now they will have that proof, but whether they will actually and consistently choose to use it to enforce the strictest possible interpretation of the no-transfer clause remains to be seen.