Disney serving trespass notices to third-party guides

I believe that the DAS abuse is a real thing, and it's like Disney can't win. They got sued (and won) because people complained that the system wasn't fair, but there is literally no requirement to use it other than to say, "I have this medical/disability issue." I'm not surprised that it's abused. We use it for certain attractions with my kid so he's not standing in a queue with his fingers in his ears for an hour (the noise in show queues is always pretty bad), so I know from experience it's not hard to register for DAS. It pisses me off that people would abuse it at the direction of some rando giving tours.

On its face, seems like a petty move by Disney. You have let third party guides on property for decades and not said anything? Similar at least to a degree with the college admission scandal: issue was less paying to gain admission than it was not going through proper/official channels.

Couldn't they create some type of permit system? To be a third party guide, you need to register with Disney. Abuse any of the parks' rules and your permit is pulled and you are banned (for a period of time or forever depending on the violation).

If 3rd party guides are "unauthorized commercial activity" then can we get Disney to agree that these professional "vloggers" and social media influencers are also unauthorized commercial activity?

Does it all come down to money? Disney offers this service, albeit at a higher price (but with additional perks). The 3rd party folks are undercutting that price. This seems like it would take business (money) out of Disney's hands.

Sure it does. And, if I ran a real estate company should I let someone set up inside my office and offer a brokerage business...or any other type of business for that matter? If I run a hospital should I allow someone to set up a walk in clinic inside my hospital?

I do think Disney should be able to regulate who uses their property for a commercial venture.

But I’ve been operating my clinic in your hospital for years and you never said anything about it.

It would be petty--if the third party guides were just using experience and good customer service to help make the guests day better.

But, if the third party guides are also abusing policies (like the DAS policy) then it would be reasonable to do something about it. That's especially true if that abuse had become more common in the recent past, and that's plausible. The switch to G+ from FP+ tends to "smooth out" the advantages of experience, giving less-experienced visitors more of a crack at low waits than they had before. It would not surprise me that folks-in-the-know started cutting more corners when it came to DAS.

Brian Noble:

The switch to G+ from FP+ tends to "smooth out" the advantages of experience, giving less-experienced visitors more of a crack at low waits than they had before.

This is probably true for the large majority of use cases, but the IT for G+ is so buggy, there are quite a few loop holes that can be exploited. (Sadly, the loophole where you could get infinite LL's got closed a few months ago).

Brian Noble:
It would be petty--if the third party guides were just using experience and good customer service to help make the guests day better.

I don't think that's petty at all. The park allows admission to their property for the purpose of enjoying the park for the day, not for the purpose of commercial activity. If I set up a photo booth where I charged people and take nice pictures of them in front of the castle, you can bet they'd shut it down in a hurry. If I set up a girl scout cookie stand on Main St., it wouldn't last a few minutes. Why is this different?

Its different because (at least according to the article), Disney let the third party guides in the park for several decades.

In fairness, "I always speed on this road, and you've never pulled me over before" is not much of a defense.

ApolloAndy:

This is probably true for the large majority of use cases, but the IT for G+ is so buggy, there are quite a few loop holes that can be exploited.

Yeah, hence "tends to" as opposed to "does"

When I was a Cast Member in the pre-DAS days, we had the GAC (Guest Assistance Card) system. It operated the way it still does at most other parks and I watched the abuse grow almost exponentially in the 6+ years I worked there.

The GAC to DAS rollout caused a huge uproar from everyone that was abusing the old system, but you were hard pressed to find guests with a legitimate need for the service that did not consider it a positive upgrade. I see all of the systems get abused in all of the parks I visit, and I genuinely don't know what kind of long term solution would be able to fix the issue in a way that allowed those with a true need to utilize the service without a hassle.

In fairness, "I always speed on this road, and you've never pulled me over before" is not much of a defense.

That is a very different situation than what happened here. And if you want to raise the defense that I sped 10 other times but you never ticketed me, I am sure they would be happy to issue you 11 tickets rather than just one. LOL

The National Park Service has a permit system for guides. I feel like that would be an appropriate direction to take.

GoBucks89:

That is a very different situation than what happened here.

Curious what distinguishes these two situations for you. To me, they seem very similar.

As someone who is naive to this whole cottage industry, what exactly would one get from a third-party guide that is (for some) worth hundreds of dollars per hour?

I'm retiring at the end of the year and starting my own company.

GoBucks89:

Its different because (at least according to the article), Disney let the third party guides in the park for several decades.

Didn't Jim Hill get in some hot water at Disneyland years ago for running his own paid tours? I seem to remember that he was busted because someone complained at guest relations after mixing up the benefits of his tour with an official one.

To me the difference is knowledge. In vast majority of cases, speeders don't get tickets because there is no monitoring for speed 24/7. Most of our time spent driving is with no speed monitoring at all (at the given time or for some roads ever). So saying I always speed on this road and you never pulled me over before should be a defense is trying to use the limits of the monitoring system as a defense. Habitual speeders should be thankful for those limits rather than attempting to use those limits as a defense for the rare times they get tagged.

With the third party guides on the other hand, the defense isn't Disney didn't know they existed. In fact, from the article, Disney knew they existed (they pulled a guide out of line at the entrance to deliver the trespass notice). Had the third party guides been acting without Disney's knowledge (and, by long term silence as to their activities, tacit approval -- you can establish a course of dealing with people by ignoring rules for an extended period of time) that would be a different situation.

Use the defense in terms of speeding and you will be told by law enforcement that if we had evidence of your prior instances of speeding, you would have gotten tickets for those instances as well. What is Disney saying to third party guides now? We ignored the policy for decades (presumably because the park saw a benefit to the third party guides) and now changed our minds. Very different situations to me.

The sale of commercial services has been banned in the parks since at least 2014 (that's as far back as the Wayback machine goes with the current web structure). It's probably been a lot longer than that.

http://web.archive.org/web/...ark-rules/

Disney hasn't spent the time, energy, or resources to do anything about it until now. That sounds an awful lot like "We aren't always looking for speeders and there are limits to our monitoring."

I mean, I can see where you split the hair here, but I think it's a reach.