Official Thread - New commercial use policy published 03/31

[sndral]

The personal use check box dropped on 6/2/25 - around 10 months ago, in another month every reservation in the system will have been made by an owner who agreed that it was for personal use. I’m wondering if we’ll start seeing enforcement now or if they’ll wait & start enforcing against reservations made after 3/31/26.
Some of the 10 enforcement options seem pretty clearly targeted.
Restricting to owner/associates name (enforcement #3 & #5) is clearly directed towards spec rentals & they’ve even built in a way to shut down the just leave the owner/associate’s name on the reservation work around by also basically requiring front desk check in (enforcement #10.)
Restricting date modifications (enforcement #5) & access to online booking (enforcement #2) seems to target walking & using bots to grab the high profit margin bookings.
The suspension of exchange privileges (enforcement #7) is interesting - see discussion from last Dec. here https://www.disboards.com/threads/k...rket-rental-store-has-its-exit-event.3976817/
I’m not sure what they’re targeting w/ the restricting/removing associates language (enforcement #8 & 9) I seem to recall that years ago David’s used to put himself as an associate to make bookings on rentals - but DVC shut that down. My sense is the associates language is targeting some very specific practices by some big rental players, but, time will tell.
Restricting to home resort booking (enforcement #4) & restricting banking, borrowing, & transferring (enforcement #6,) & restricting reservations to only owner/associates (enforcement #3) all seem aimed at strip & flip or maybe renters who own a lot of low MFs/carrying cost points & routinely use them for non home resort bookings.

 

[DanCali]

What are the odds that now having arbitration agreements as part of direct purchase agreements is related to these changes as well?

 

[DCL58]

We are violating the overlapping reservations clause - on all of our reservations this year. We cruise a lot and take our adult children - I routinely book 2 studios before and after cruises. Have 8 of these overlapping reservations on my account right now. And nothing else.

I am not wasting the extra points for a 2 bedroom
and will not make my adult sons share a bed in the living area of a one bedroom. We book 2 studios. Anxiously waiting for what DVC will tell me when they deem I have broken their new rules.

 

[disneylandtour]

One thing I thought was very interesting is the prohibition on filming in DVC locations so as to advertise points for sale or rent. I think that could affect DVC sale and rental brokers.

And this was another one of the rules that wasn't thought through deeply. So instead of the GENERIC DVC RENTAL SITE making videos about various room types. Now it will be STEVE AND MARY'S DVC FAN YOUTUBE CHANNEL SPONSORED BY THE GENERIC DVC RENTAL SITE, with those videos then serving the same purpose.

 

[disneylandtour]

What are the odds that now having arbitration agreements as part of direct purchase agreements is related to these changes as well?

Possible. But some existing contracts presently run through 2070. So it'll take decades to clear out the system.

 

[DanCali]

We are violating the overlapping reservations clause - on all of our reservations this year. We cruise a lot and take our adult children - I routinely book 2 studios before and after cruises. Have 8 of these overlapping reservations on my account right now. And nothing else.

I am not wasting the extra points for a 2 bedroom
and will not make my adult sons share a bed in the living area of a one bedroom. We book 2 studios. Anxiously waiting for what DVC will tell me when they deem I have broken their new rules.

Pricing a 1BR a 2 x studio and a 2BR as 3 x studio is the biggest downside of DVC in my opinion (and when you get into the Grand Villas and Bungalows etc. it's even crazier when you look at the cost to book those).

I still prefer a 1BR that sleeps 5 over 2 studios, but would prefer 2 studios over a 1BR that sleeps 4.

 

[Moonspinner]

And this was another one of the rules that wasn't thought through deeply. So instead of the GENERIC DVC RENTAL SITE making videos about various room types. Now it will be STEVE AND MARY'S DVC FAN YOUTUBE CHANNEL SPONSORED BY THE GENERIC DVC RENTAL SITE, with those videos then serving the same purpose.

Except that technically all commercial activity on Disney property is illegal. Disney has just never enforced it. All YouTubers making money on videos could be gone from all of Disney property. Hate to say it but I’d love that.

 

[DonMacGregor]

The alluded consequences would be consequences from using an unaffiliated third party (if something goes wrong with the rental or the payments from the rental from the third party) and the consequences from Disney if the renter rents too often or too much, not for just using the third party to do a singular rental.

It clearly reads to me that using a third party is 100% allowed, just not encouraged or endorsed. It would be how many points or how many reservations are rented that would put the member in trouble with DVC, not from simply using a third party when they wanted to do a rental

Then to follow that logic, DVC has added several new paragraphs that mean absolutely nothing. There would be no reason to even mention the following:

• Regular advertising by an Owner, Associate, or someone else at the direction of an Owner (such as an employee, principal, officer, director, contractor, or agent acting on behalf of an Owner; collectively "Owner Agent") of the availability of Vacation Ownership Interests and/or Vacation Homes for rental, including but not limited to use of a dedicated website, social media account, page, post, third-party service provider, or on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised.

By that logic, there would be no prohibition on advertising, which is what a broker site does, no prohibition on the use of a dedicated website, which is exactly what a broker's site is, and no prohibition on using a third-party provider, which is what a broker is. In other words, that whole paragraph means literally nothing.

Further, the inclusion of "any other media or platform known or hereafter devised" means "even if we didn't list, we didn't think of it, or it doesn't even exist yet, using it to constitute commercial use. How you get to "using a third-party site is 100% allowed is curious. That's 100% inclusion, and zero exclusion.

Also (and I think there needs to be a sticky somewhere on this forum) absolutely no one has even suggested that using a third party to do a singular rental will automatically cause some review or punitive action.

 

[Tatebeck]

We are violating the overlapping reservations clause - on all of our reservations this year. We cruise a lot and take our adult children - I routinely book 2 studios before and after cruises. Have 8 of these overlapping reservations on my account right now. And nothing else.

I am not wasting the extra points for a 2 bedroom
and will not make my adult sons share a bed in the living area of a one bedroom. We book 2 studios. Anxiously waiting for what DVC will tell me when they deem I have broken their new rules.

"Hmm it seems you have a lot of overlapping reservations.
Oh and it seems it is always for you and the same few other people. Are they your family?"

"Yes"

"Oh okay, and do you charge them for any of the reservations?"

"No."

"Ok, thank you and have a magical day!"

__________________

It's possible if this doesn't do enough that they could continue to address the points charts over time in a way that makes studios less desirable and 2BR/1BR more desirable. I would be okay with that as well.

 

[disneylandtour]

The way this has played out with Wyndham: They had a short list of who they considered to be the worst offenders, and those specific individuals were very publicly targeted. The first round was a set of "knock it off or else" letters. Those who chose "or else" had their accounts frozen, and were essentially dared to sue. Almost without fail, each of those individuals was so obviously running a business that almost no one else* thought that what they were doing was within The (implied) Rules. Rank and file owners generally lined up with Wyndham and against the Evil Mega-Renters, leaving the latter on an island.

At that point, the Evil Mega-Renters were left with the following choices: exit the business, or try to take Wyndham to court. I can think of exactly one person who negotiated an exit that wasn't a total capitulation, but he did so in part by pointing out all the loopholes that the other Evil Mega-Renters were using to get leverage in the system, so he had something to offer. The rest were stuck in endless and very expensive litigation unitl they either reached a settlment that included an NDA and an agreement to never own Wyndham again, or they just quit.

Will Disney do that? I don't know. But it sure looks like they are lining up the ducks to do exactly this. Slowly.

I do think that this is generally the path Disney is trying to take. Unlike Wyndam, however, I do think one of the big fish might file a suit. And I, too, am not 100% these rules, as stated, are going to hold up. And also, I can't imagine that DVD has a bunch of money put away for legal fees.

 

[Tatebeck]

Then to follow that logic, DVC has added several new paragraphs that mean absolutely nothing. There would be no reason to even mention the following:

• Regular advertising by an Owner, Associate, or someone else at the direction of an Owner (such as an employee, principal, officer, director, contractor, or agent acting on behalf of an Owner; collectively "Owner Agent") of the availability of Vacation Ownership Interests and/or Vacation Homes for rental, including but not limited to use of a dedicated website, social media account, page, post, third-party service provider, or on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised.

By that logic, there would be no prohibition on advertising, which is what a broker site does, no prohibition on the use of a dedicated website, which is exactly what a broker's site is, and no prohibition on using a third-party provider, which is what a broker is. In other words, that whole paragraph means literally nothing.

Further, the inclusion of "any other media or platform known or hereafter devised" means "even if we didn't list, we didn't think of it, or it doesn't even exist yet, using it to constitute commercial use. How you get to "using a third-party site is 100% allowed is curious. That's 100% inclusion, and zero exclusion.

Also (and I think there needs to be a sticky somewhere on this forum) absolutely no one has even suggested that using a third party to do a singular rental will automatically cause some review or punitive action.

Again it comes down to the regular part. That section definitely still means something, just like the others do.

It means that it is allowed to rent a single reservation. It is also allowed to advertise that the single reservation is available.

It is only when you rent (or try to rent aka advertise) too much that you will be put on DVC/Disney's radar.

So it is only unacceptable if you do it regularly (aka year after year, reservation after reservation, etc.), otherwise it is allowed

 

[Moonspinner]

"Hmm it seems you have a lot of overlapping reservations.
Oh and it seems it is always for you and the same few other people. Are they your family?"

"Yes"

"Oh okay, and do you charge them for any of the reservations?"

"No."

"Ok, thank you and have a magical day!"

__________________

It's possible if this doesn't do enough that they could continue to address the points charts over time in a way that makes studios less desirable and 2BR/1BR more desirable. I would be okay with that as well.

They are much less desirable because no laundry and no kitchen=wet towels and no homemade cookies.

 

[disneylandtour]

Except that technically all commercial activity on Disney property is illegal. Disney has just never enforced it. All YouTubers making money on videos could be gone from all of Disney property. Hate to say it but I’d love that.

I don't think that Disney is clamping down on YouTubers anytime soon. They benefit too much from it. But in this case, a supposed sponsorship arrangement separates the big problem from a tiny one and further adds chaos into the issue.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Bots? Really? I guess that wouldn’t be abnormal these days.

Yes, they really aren't that hard to create if you know tech or pay someone to make. And we all know DVC IT sucks so they probably aren't string enough to stop it.

How is this doable with the BVTC rules? I was surprised to read this one.

The rest I completely support - especially prohibiting modifications, making them call, their loss of privileges of Membership Extras, but this one I take issue with

It's very possible this how they are legally allowed to do this since your contract only guarantees booking at your home resort. But again I am no lawyer.

I appreciate that no one has put this to the test, but I was wondering if anyone can tell from the wording whether breaking one of these rules is enough to be penalised, or if breaking one of the rules will simply make them investigate you for potentially being a commercial renter.

The only one which bothers me is the overlapping rooms/dates part. We are thinking of doing a family trip in the next year or two with my parents and my sisters family. We're definitely beyond sharing rooms so we would most likely book three studios. I couldn't afford a grand villa, and most of my points are at BCV which doesn't even have them. It would likely take at least a years worth of points, so clearly a majority. Does this mean that I as I have broken one of the stated rules they can take action against me, or would I be able to challenge this as it I can prove that these people are related to me so it is not a commercial rental? I don't mind if they want to question me but I don't want it to be enforced without investigation!

I do find this rule to be quite unusual. If I was renting out my points I probably wouldn't want my renters staying at the same time as me! I also regularly book overlapping rooms while we're still in the planning stages.

I also book overlapping for family. Family I always travel with. If you aren't renting a majority of your points to strangers "general public" as DVC has chosen to use the term then you should be fine. No need to worry I would not think.

 

[Moonspinner]

I do think that this is generally the path Disney is trying to take. Unlike Wyndam, however, I do think one of the big fish might file a suit. And I, too, am not 100% these rules, as stated, are going to hold up. And also, I can't imagine that DVD has a bunch of money put away for legal fees.

I don’t think Disney will have any problem shutting down as much of this as they want. The original contracts say no commercial activity. It’s very straightforward. They are just being nice by giving people fair warning. And in legal proceedings fair warning is important.

 

[Tatebeck]

They are much less desirable because no laundry and no kitchen=wet towels and no homemade cookies.

It just depends on the guest. To some people you are correct. And to some others all they care about is the number of people the room sleeps vs how much it costs. Not everyone wants to bake cookies in the room and you can just ask for more towels. I say that as someone who 100% prefers 1BR over studios myself, but I can put myself into others' shoes.

 

[Moonspinner]

I don't think that Disney is clamping down on YouTubers anytime soon. They benefit too much from it. But in this case, a supposed sponsorship arrangement separates the big problem from a tiny one and further adds chaos into the issue.

The point is that they can.

 

[mkatsy]

I’m not sure what they’re targeting w/ the restricting/removing associates language (enforcement #8 & 9) I seem to recall that years ago David’s used to put himself as an associate to make bookings on rentals - but DVC shut that down. My sense is the associates language is targeting some very specific practices by some big rental players, but, time will tell.

Some of the brokers hold hundreds of contracts in LLC’s that were set up under the C suite executives and their wives names. I’m sure those executives are not logging in to play point Jenga at 8 am. They probably add the clerk they hired as an associate to handle the transactions. I saw one LLC that was held in the company accountants name that guy should know better

 

[Moonspinner]

Some of the brokers hold hundreds of contracts in LLC’s that were set up under the C suite executives and their wives names. I’m sure those executives are not logging in to play point Jenga at 8 am. They probably add the clerk they hired as an associate to handle the transactions. I saw one LLC that was held in the company accountants name that guy should know better

That’s crazy
Why don’t they just put the money into the stock market

 

[VGCgroupie]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
--Upton Sinclair


The plain meaning is: "More than half."


It's very clear (and has been for a while, IMO) that Disney has very carefully framed this entire discussion as "We are just clarifying what the documents have always said."

Here's how I read all of this, in light of how other developers have done similar things: These are not Rules so much as Reasons. And as Don notes in the rest of his post (a part I did not quote), the list is not all of the possible Reasons. (That's what the "[w]ithout limiting the discretion" clause means.)

Here's the difference between a Rule and a Reason. Rules are an exhaustive list that clearly define The Line. If you violate them, you are on the wrong side of The Line; if you stay within them, you are on the right side of The Line. Reasons are the justifications for doing something that Disney wants to do anyway, and in most cases will be viewed by most impartial observers as reasonable in light of The Reasons.

The way this has played out with Wyndham: They had a short list of who they considered to be the worst offenders, and those specific individuals were very publicly targeted. The first round was a set of "knock it off or else" letters. Those who chose "or else" had their accounts frozen, and were essentially dared to sue. Almost without fail, each of those individuals was so obviously running a business that almost no one else* thought that what they were doing was within The (implied) Rules. Rank and file owners generally lined up with Wyndham and against the Evil Mega-Renters, leaving the latter on an island.

At that point, the Evil Mega-Renters were left with the following choices: exit the business, or try to take Wyndham to court. I can think of exactly one person who negotiated an exit that wasn't a total capitulation, but he did so in part by pointing out all the loopholes that the other Evil Mega-Renters were using to get leverage in the system, so he had something to offer. The rest were stuck in endless and very expensive litigation unitl they either reached a settlment that included an NDA and an agreement to never own Wyndham again, or they just quit.

Will Disney do that? I don't know. But it sure looks like they are lining up the ducks to do exactly this. Slowly.

As I've also noted before, this "shoot first ask questions later" approach Wyndham took to was modestly successful, but it was partly a game of whack-a-mole. What was much more successful? Cancelling a few rental reservations made by some of those worst offenders at the very last minute, and telling the guests when they arrived; "Sorry, we can't help you." Those guests then told everyone, everywhere, that Wyndham rentals were "risky" and demand plummeted, and fast. If you do not believe me, go back and skim the we loooooove Bonnet Creek thread. For years, WBC was the darling of the offsite deal-seeking community: a resort with tons of availability at extremely good prices that felt like it was inside the bubble. Almost overnight, demand cratered. To this day, there are a lot of "be careful, Wyndham cancels reservations" warnings whenever anyone talks about renting there.

At the end of the day, here is the thing I think most people are missing. Disney does not have to have an airtight legal case for this to work. The guidelines may or may not be entirely 100% kosher. It won't matter, for two reasons. One: Disney is almsot certinly going to choose the absolute worst offenders that no reasonable person would say is not a buisness. For example, if I were one of the named principals in one of the Large Broker's group of LLC-owned Memberships, I would assume there is a target on my back. Two: Even if Disney's case is not airtight, they absolutely can (and probably will) starve out individual owners in expensive litigation.

"What about a pro bono class action suit? That will save us!" To the extent I understand the economics of those things, there is approximately no chance of that happening, because the class is not nearly big enough and the damages are not large enough.


This is exactly what I mean by Rules vs. Reasons. This question is framed in a Rules world. Disney is not going to use a bunch of criteria to sweep up 10% of the ownership to hassle, beyond maybe sending a "hey, knock it off" letter. They are going to pick a dozen or so of the largest, most egregious examples they can find, and go after them first, pointing to this list as the Reasons.

And, if I were a betting man, I'd bet they already know who those dozen or so people are---and have for years.

--------------------
*: The exceptions were, almost without fail, other medium-to-large-scale renters. They spent a lot of time trying to convince the rank-and-file owners that these moves were harming their ownership. The rank-and-file owners were not having it.

This is very insightful, thank you for taking the time to time to type this all out.

As for the class action part I cannot fathom there are enough people mad about this that could make that come to fruition.