Official Thread - New commercial use policy published 03/31

[Tatebeck]

If a broker site owns no points, from a contractual standpoint, what sway does Disney have over them? They are facilitating the re-sale of a product offered by Disney, but not working directly with Disney. They are essentially an eBay-like entity.

IMO, nothing (as long as they are not owning/controlling points themselves as you say).

They are allowed to exist, and members can use them if they wish. And if Disney thinks the member themselves is renting too much they can do something about it by contacting the member and warning/punishing them

 

[VGCgroupie]

I am ok with not being able to rent points, but I was aghast when I started hearing members say that their DVC guides recommended buying twice the points that needed so they could rent half to cover dues and loan payments. We bought long ago and were never told this, actually were told we could never take money for our points because of the commercial clause. Then when island tower opened and we toured, the guide that toured us made the buy twice rent half pitch. He had no response when I quoted back the commercial clause.

I note this because I don’t think it’s fair if members bought under this advice and are now penalized for what DVC guides told them. Not the big commercial renters, happy to see them go, but the average members who were told to buy double and rent half.

Times have changed. And also every single contract that is signed states the DVD/DVC is not responsible for anything that was told to you by a guide.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Interestingly the guidelines they posted would just barely allow that. Only if you rented more than half you points would you be on their radar. I wonder if they chose over half for that reason. Or it could be just because points typically rent for around 2x the dues

Perhaps. I’m sure DVC knew this was happening. I was very surprised they let it go on.

 

[VGCgroupie]

See, I tend to disagree because that bullet point specifically states that if you regularly advertise contracts for rent on a "dedicated website" or use a "third-party service provider" on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised", you run afoul of the rules.

That very clearly states that simply listing a confirmed reservation on ANY website (or apparently anywhere else for that matter), even if it's just an electronic want ad board, your local community forum, a Facebook page, a Reddit page, whatever, you're in violation of the rules. Obviously, it's still a matter of how much or how often. The broker doesn't even need to act as an intermediary. They are providing a service (a webpage) where owners seeking to rent out confirmed reservations can list (advertise) them.

Now, obviously, DVC isn't going to be trolling my local community message board looking for DVC contracts for rent, but a site dedicated to listing points and reservations for rent with "DVC" in its name? That's some obvious and low hanging fruit. Again, Disney has no control over the broker (unless they are an owner as well), but they DO have control over the owner advertising their points for rent on that website. I don't think the "intermediary" part even comes into play (although you just have to know that some lawyer somewhere explicitly told them to use that term for some very obvious reasons). They're soliciting DVC owners to advertise their contracts that they want to rent on their website (providing a service), and advertising is specifically what that bullet point addresses.

The only ambiguity is, again, the use of the term "regular".

DVC has to have people looking at local community sites. I assume you dont take to social media platforms regularly, but there are forums and groups dedicated to renting DVC points. DVC has people watching these boards why would they not have people patrolling facebook, reddit etc?

 

[Brian Noble]

And thats not really outlined in the contract clearly, just that youll be on the hook if you back out and use them before, not that you cant use them before.

I thought this was clear enough when I read the contract. It stated that the value of the trip would be withheld from the funds paid prior to that point with the balance refunded. It was not hard for me to conclude that that meant there had to be sufficient funds on deposit to cover the trip. But I can see how that might not be obvious.

 

[disneylandtour]

The thing is like another smart disboarder pointed out, if you aren't in this as a commercial renter how are you justifying spending thousands and thousands of dollars to take DVD to court? Next, DVD has to have legal on retainer Im not sure they would be spending much more to go to court.

I've seen it estimated that there are between 225,000 and 250,000 DVC owners. That's a lot.

In the US, about .5% of the adult population has a law degree and maybe .3% practice law.

The bigger questions is what is the percentage of DVC owners who are practicing lawyers. As DVC HEAVILY targets the upper-middle-class (i.e right where laywers are) I'd expect this to be around .6%.

So all Disney needs to do is piss off a few people related to lawyers (or even a few lawyer themselves) with this, then there's a self-interested lawyer putting in some papers to court.

I've sorta thought the whole OWK/OWK-e would likely go the same way, with a couple of lawyers who happen to also be DVC OWK owners.

 

[Sandisw]

They can actually choose to use the other indicator which is 51% or more of any reservations and/or points you control, even if under 20 reservations.

ETA Honestly I don't know whey they even left that 20 reservation language in there, unless they just wanted to keep some of the same language from the old commercial multiple reservation rule for some reason. It seems irrelevant now. As long as you are using both the majority of your points and reservations for you or your family over time, I don't think any members will have problems. No need to even count reservations really

My guess on leaving the 20? The POS gives us the right to make as many reservations as we want.

Leaving that there just allowed them to keep what was in the old policy for potential trigger but added all the other stuff to address specifically, in writing, so no more speculating on what else they could use.

While it states it is not an exhaustive list, it definitely is pretty extensive and IMO covers a majority of situations that would allow them to reasonably conclude you have crossed the line.

 

[VGCgroupie]

I've seen it estimated that there are between 225,000 and 250,000 DVC owners. That's a lot.

In the US, about .5% of the adult population has a law degree and maybe .3% practice law.

The bigger questions is what is the percentage of DVC owners who are practicing lawyers. As DVC HEAVILY targets the upper-middle-class (i.e right where laywers are) I'd expect this to be around .6%.

So all Disney needs to do is piss off a few people related to lawyers (or even a few lawyer themselves) with this, then there's a self-interested lawyer putting in some papers to court.

I've sorta thought the whole OWK/OWK-e would likely go the same way, with a couple of lawyers who happen to also be DVC OWK owners.

I actually know DVC owners who are lawyers and they are 100% pro commercial renting crackdown. The OKWE thing is a much different issue and imo cannot be compared.

 

[Genie+]

To stir the pot a little over my second cup of coffee this morning, the language in the "new" rules that I find most interesting from a spectator's standpoint is this (emphasis added):


I'm curious how the major rental brokers will rationalize around that one.

"Regular", not frequent or repeated.
"A dedicated website" as in a rental brokers website?
"Third-party service provider" as in a "third-party intermediary"?
"Or on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised" which sounds like it includes tear-off flyers stapled to a telephone pole or messages written on a bathroom stall.

I just don't see how you can argue (or try to rationalize) that that specific language is not targeted right at online brokers.

My gut feeling is DVC will be going after Confirmed Reservation websites, among others.

They are not just advertising points - they are advertising specific availability. They are not matching owners points to rental requests and then finding availability. They are pulling the highest demand availability to sell to the public later.

Out of all the questionable rental practices I feel this is the most egregious when it comes to rule breaking and most harmful to the functionality of DVC for its membership.

There really is no way to defend these practices from any angle.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

Times have changed. And also every single contract that is signed states the DVD/DVC is not responsible for anything that was told to you by a guide.

I agree this is in the written language of the contract, but the written contract wasn’t as specific on renting as the current release of interpretation is. Nonetheless, shame on DVC for letting guides say it. I personally don’t think the new rules will be used in a way that harms those average members who bought double. Personally I continue to consider it that we were very fortunate to have the guide we had when we bought direct.

 

[DonMacGregor]

These two things are not the same. Regular does not equal one-time

This is becoming pedantic. Nowhere did I say the two were the same. I said that the rules now state that if you regularly advertise contracts for rent which clearly means more than once in order for it to be a pattern (in an earlier post I even said that at its strictest definition, MAYBE "regularly" COULD be construed as possibly renting only once PER YEAR, but there still needed to be a pattern so obviously more than once in total).

The second emphasized sentence also doesn't say "one-time". It says that listing a reservation on a website is a violation of the rules. That is a statement of fact. It makes no mention of how many times you're allowed to do it, I'm simply saying that the act of advertising a contract for rent is the action that runs afoul of DVC's newly defined rules.

It's like speeding. Going over the posted speed limit is speeding. Some jurisdictions give you a buffer (maybe 5 MPH over). Going over it by a certain MPH will likely be a citation. Go over it by more, and it might be a misdemeanor. Go over it by a LOT, and it might be a felony. Regardless, the act of speeding is the action which violates the law, how it is charged and the subsequent penalty is dependent on the severity of the act. That's what I'm saying.

Advertising is a violation of the letter of the rules. That bullet point doesn't say "more than once" or "less than twice", or anything else to define the frequency, it simply says advertising is the action that can trigger a review for commercial activity. We can obviously assume that doing it once or twice (or maybe even more often) might not trigger any enforcement, but the advertising is still the action that violates the rules, depending on how often DVC will allow it.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree it is vague… to some degree. That’s how legal documents are. Disney has kept them vague because they want the leeway to do as they want. Unless Disney specifically gives you the right to rent your points, you do not have that right. And they have never given that right in any document anywhere. Disney has turned a blind eye, but they have not given owners any rights to rent. I keep using the YouTube comparison because it is very similar. Disney has turned a blind eye to the fact that people are commercializing Disney IP, Disney assets on YouTube, but that doesn’t mean disney won’t eventually crack down. Disney has never specifically, legally given youtubers the right to do what they are doing.

The law and the contract do give you the right to rent. The board has acknowledged that many times.

 

[VGCgroupie]

And I am officially caught up! Whew!!

 

[disneylandtour]

I actually know DVC owners who are lawyers and they are 100% pro commercial renting crackdown. The OKWE thing is a much different issue and imo cannot be compared.

I just meant that I felt the people who eventually bring it to court would be owners who are also lawyers. I wasn't making any larger comparison.

 

[Brian Noble]

...for now.

 

[Mirabell Rose]

I just meant that I felt the people who eventually bring it to court would be owners who are also lawyers. I wasn't making any larger comparison.

Could be, but law is very much a field of speciality. So it would likely need to be an owner, an attorney, and one who specializes in this type of law. And might I add, has the time to fight a big corporation.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Could be, but law is very much a field of speciality. So it would likely need to be an owner, an attorney, and one who specializes in this type of law. And might I add, has the time to fight a big corporation.

Yeah I dont see many or any lawyers who own DVC really wanting to take on this fight, unless they commercial rent.

 

[DonMacGregor]

This is another area that I'm confused about. If a broker site owns no points, from a contractual standpoint, what sway does Disney have over them? They are facilitating the re-sale of a product offered by Disney, but not working directly with Disney. They are essentially an eBay-like entity.

And this bring me back to: it would be so much clearer to have quantified rules that are applied to each owner.

Am I in some weird episode of The Twilight Zone? How many times does it need to be said? Unless the broker is an owner as well, Disney has no direct control over them nor any way to prohibit their operation. No one is arguing otherwise. No one has suggested Disney will go after brokers.

DVC does, however, have control over the members who might choose to utilize the broker for the rental of their points. If the new rules prohibit the advertisement of contracts for rent, or the use of a third-party service provider, or "a dedicated website, social media account, page, post, third-party service provider, or on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised" then the member using the broker may be in violation of DVC rules (if they exceed whatever threshold DVC sets). Scaring owners, particularly those who would use a broker regularly (because how many times do sudden life events, illness, or other unanticipated situations that preclude you from using your points occur "regularly"?) could have a significant negative effect on the brokers, purely from a site utilization perspective. That's where the effect on brokers could possibly be seen.

The rule reads:

• 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.

To your point regarding eBay, it sure looks like eBay would fall under "dedicated website, social media account, page, post, third-party service provider, or on any other media or platform now known or hereafter devised" as well.

 

[Sandisw]

Perhaps. I’m sure DVC knew this was happening. I was very surprised they let it go on.

Even last year it was mentioned, including at the meetings that offsetting dues can fall within the guidelines.

My guess is the use of the word “majority” was purposely chosen.

 

[DonMacGregor]

DVC has to have people looking at local community sites. I assume you dont take to social media platforms regularly, but there are forums and groups dedicated to renting DVC points. DVC has people watching these boards why would they not have people patrolling facebook, reddit etc?

My point is that Disney isn't trolling every HOA community message board, trying to find, between the complaints about kids skinny dipping in the spa and the revised tree trimming guidelines, any random posts about my DVC points I want to unload. "Forums and groups dedicated to renting DVC points" are something entirely different and would obviously be ripe for scrutiny and easily found with even a basic search engine (which is exactly what my point was).