Would you join a lawsuit to revert DVC's resale restrictions?

[Sandisw]

And to some extent, that strategy has been working. FOMO can be a powerful incentive. There are several reports here on the DIS of people buying the minimum number direct points just to qualify for Membership Extras. Most of them would have bought entirely resale if it didn't matter for getting the ME perks and discounts.

If you remember, back in 2016, when it first happened, so many reports of people adding on just the 25 points that made them eligible! Now, with 150 point minimum, it may be a harder choice, but still, there can be benefits. For me, the larger drawback is the restricted use of resale points than it is the discounts...though, I can't complain about those! LOL

 

[kristenrice]

I would love to believe that but their is no financial way that one years of sales pays for the last 30 years of direct members yearly benefits. It’s an impossibility. Their are too many members.

...which is probably why the benefits have been decreasing year after year...

 

[808blessing]

Another salient issue is why is the ever-changing arbitrary number (150 currently) the bar for "eligible"? I am a direct member. But just "not enough". Resales vs direct is one thing. What do you all think about direct vs direct?

It's not even that i live in a "different neighborhood" and treated differently. I am on the same block. My square footage is just smaller. Sorry, no home mail service for me! I just have to drive to the post office like "the others".

 

[Chuck S]

Minimum buy-ins have been a part of DVC since the beginning. The original buy in was 230 points for a contract, once you purchased that, then you could add on smaller numbers. It is what it is. Perks aren't guaranteed, and can be adjusted at anytime. You didn't "purchase" the perks, you purchased a real estate interest, that is all anyone is legally guaranteed. If anything, they could have avoided confusion by NOT grandfathering in smaller contracts for perks.

 

[Brian Noble]

From my understanding, that the discounts for merchandise and food are agreements with those vendor to offer the discount…it doesn’t cost anything.

Same with the AP…it’s a deal with DPEP to include DVC owners in the same program for certain tickets offered to FL residents…again, not costing anything to DVD.

It would not surprise me to learn that there is an internal transfer between DVD and those other divisions to offset some of these. There may be no direct costs, but that doesn't mean there aren't "costs."

That's also true of the offering unit--they are forgoing revenue, and that matters. Some of these are upsells that pay for themselves (the restaurant discounts probably are, as they tend to apply to less popular places and times) but some of them are probably not.

 

[AliceIn]

I personally believe DVC knows that they are treading on potential legal issues with their RIV resale restrictions. Unless a law suit it brought against them or at least a cease and desist letter being issued DVC wins.

I do not think DVC wants a long drawn out law suit. They do not want bad PR and Dinsey does not want this in the local/national news, blogs, forums. This would be settled out of court in a heart beat to prevent loss DVC sales. The most likely outcome would be to take away the restrictions.

Big companies aren't afraid of long lawsuits, because they have their own in house attorneys. Long lawsuits hurt the little guy WAY more than a giant corporation. I don't think the lawsuit would take away the restrictions, because of the fact that people would not be able to prove financial harm. If you bought before 2019 - you got all resorts available to you, and you still have that. People who bought resale after 2019 knew that they would have restrictions.