Disney serving trespass notices to third-party guides

In my scenario, nothing is being sold in the park. People are paying for admission and visiting the park together. Just like millions of other people do. I don’t see how that constitutes “trespassing.” Except in a dumb, rent-seeking way. Which I acknowledge the law may support. But the law in this respect is an ass.

I will also acknowledge that in reality these tour operators may be obnoxious jerks.

I’ll leave y’all alone.

wahoo skipper:

Without getting into the weeds too much I'm sure there are insurance implications here. If Disney is knowingly allowing a third party operator to conduct a commercial activity on their property, which inherently creates potential liability, I suspect their insurance carrier frowns on that.

In addition to that and speaking from dealing with something similar through my work, there's an issue of content control. If a third party tour guide is passing on false or propietary information, it's difficult to control any of that if the person is not their employee. I think the issue with DAS abuse gets to that to some degree.

hambone:

But the law in this respect is an ass.

So if I change people's oil in the parking lot of the Quick Change place but I get my payment off of their property that makes it OK?

Why would you suggest that?

Payment off-site is what I am seeing as your justification for the tour guides being able to keep doing their thing in the park.

Or I am completely missing your perspective.

You are doing the oil change in the parking lot, but you paid the oil change company to be there, along with everyone else who is changing the oil in the parking lot, the difference is that you paid someone else extra instead of changing the oil yourself?

also, the oil change company is busy doing their thing too, and has a line waiting.

There are many shades of grey in place with this one.

My argument is that the tourguides aren’t* doing anything in the park that differs from what many many other people are doing.

*Maybe they are! That’s a different matter. Faking disabilities sucks and actually disadvantages people. Standing in front of the Emporium with a cash box would be incredibly annoying! Walking around with a bullhorn followed by 100 people would be a serious infringement on people’s enjoyment of Epcot. So would changing people’s oil in front of the TTC. If that’s what’s going on, given them the boot!

Krap, I said I’d leave you alone and you sucked me back in.

One of the cool things about life is you get to be wrong if you want.

hambone:

My argument is that the tourguides aren’t* doing anything in the park that differs from what many many other people are doing.

You are correct that the tour guides and your cousin are doing the exact same thing in the park - they are offering tours.

The difference is that one is making a living off of it. The other is not. It is really that simple.

Maybe we need to reframe the issue. I run a gym. You pay a membership to use my gym. But, I also have instructors who will do private training...for an additional fee.

Now you, as a member, want to hire a personal trainer to come with you to the gym to give you private training instruction. That personal trainer has not been vetted, background checked, and is not covered under the gymnasium insurance policy.

Should the gymnasium owner just turn his head and accept it? I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all commercial gyms, frown on that and have policies prohibiting it.

TheMillenniumRider:

You are doing the oil change in the parking lot, but you paid the oil change company to be there, along with everyone else who is changing the oil in the parking lot, the difference is that you paid someone else extra instead of changing the oil yourself?

also, the oil change company is busy doing their thing too, and has a line waiting.

I am not following your response. I do not work for the Quick Change place. I am just an independent oile change technician that just happens to be set-up in a tent in the parking lot of the Quick Change place. I am not making any payments to the Quick Change.

I am simply changing Billy Joe Bob's oil and he is paying me across the street for the service that I have rendered.

I’ll concede the insurance point, but only because American tort law is an ass, too. I still don’t think it’s a good use of law enforcement.

The oil change analogy doesn’t seem remotely on target to me.

The oil change scenario doesn't work for me. To make it equivalent, you'd pay to reserve a bay at the oil change place to change your own oil, buy the oil and filter from them, stand in line to use their jack, but then instead of changing it yourself you pay someone else to do it. The oil change place still got theirs.

Ditto the gym. You're implying that if I buy a membership to a gym and so does another guy then we go to the gym fully paid and on the level, and he says that for $20 he'll spot me (or whatever the hell you do in gyms, I don't know) that they'd kick us out? I don't think they would.

I'm not really for or against this, but the comparisons are irking me for some reason.

I honestly don't see why Disney would care, though.

That's sort of what I was getting at earlier. Disney doesn't appear to be losing much of anything on these indie tour people. Everyone paid to get in, to eat, whatever. Provided the groups are not hindering the experience of other guests, then not sure what exactly the issue is.

I saw insurance mentioned, but everyone is in your park just like any other day of the week. Whats the difference if one of them got hurt, it would still be on Disney's insurance, again, I don't think the tour guides are egging people on to stand up on rides, or jump fences, so not really sure what the difference would be on insurance.

If anything the tour guides are amping up an experience for other people and generating more positive word about the Disney product.

Unless Disney has a bunch of excess tour capacity that has gone unused and they are losing a ton of money, then what is the problem?

How much would implied consent apply here? You cannot tell me Disney was blissfully unaware that third party tour guides existed in their parks for decades.

They're being disruptive to operations because "they" are telling people about ways to abuse DAS, for one. But I don't understand why it's so hard for folks to see why a company wouldn't want other people charging for a service on their property.

Jeff:

I don't understand why it's so hard for folks to see why a company wouldn't want other people charging for a service on their property.

Especially when the company is offering the exact same service.

I totally get why Disney doesn’t like it; it undercuts their own (possibly overpriced) tour business.

I just don’t think the police should have a role in enforcing it.

Like, the conversation should be:

DISNEY: Hello, police? A dude is giving tours on our property.
POLICE: Is he breaking the law?
WDW: No, we just don’t like it.
POLICE: Did you sell him a ticket?
WDW: Yeeeeeesss…
[click]

DISNEY: "Hello, police? We are a private landowner, and someone is on our property without our permission."
POLICE: "Okay, we'll be right there."

It doesn't matter why the private landowner did not grant/rescinded permission. It is theirs to grant or rescind.

If a private property owner requests an officer to issue a trespass notice to an individual, they don't hang up. They do it because it is the right of the property owner.