Disney serving trespass notices to third-party guides

POLICE: Did you ask them to leave?
WDW: No …

For real, imma leave you alone now.

I’d like to pay for a third-party tour of your thought process, because the official tour of it isn’t helping me understand how it works.

Trespassed from Disney? Call Fighter Law.

https://www.fighterlaw.com/..._Universal

Sometimes we are reminded that some people in this country live in an alternate reality. This thread is a portal to that special place.

This situation (and the arguments in this thread) remind me of the personal training business. A personal trainer is either an employee of a gym, or pays "rent" to the gym to train people inside their gym. At the same time, regular ass people sometimes secretly "personal train" people inside a gym they are a member at, but if they are caught, they will be kicked out and banned. I can help my friend workout for free for no problem, but if I require him to pay me, then I'm breaking the TOS and can get banned from the gym.

The only aspect Disney is missing is the ability to pay "rent" to give people 3rd party tours inside the parks.

Someone doesn't need a third party guide to violate the disability access system. You don't have to act on property to coach people to violate that system. Presumably not all of the third party guides were involved with violating that system. So the change in policy is neither sufficient nor necessary in terms of addressing abuses of that system.

Only Disney knows why it permitted the third party guides to operate on property for decades but reversed course now. May be they started out slow and weren't anything worth worrying about. Over time may have grown in number and created more of an impact. Could be financial: Disney wanted a slice of that pie as it grew when it didn't care about it when the pie was smaller. Could be concerns with confusion of brands. Could also be insurance concerns I suppose. Though I understand the third party guides had no additional privileges/access rights at the parks. So there isn't anything guides could be doing that another guest couldn't be doing. So insurance concern isn't seem to me to be valid. Though not an insurance law expert. Again, only Disney knows.

In the end, may be the case that third party guides are gone forever. If someone is looking for a private tour on property, they must buy an official VIP tour (more potential revenue for Disney). Disney may find a way to bring the third party guides back with some type of permitting system. Could charge for permits which would allow Disney to capture a piece of the pie. And provide more of an element of control with the ability to establish guidelines/standard for what is required to obtain/maintain a permit and yank permits in cases of violations. Could make it a high price which would create something of a barrier to entry. Disney could also start to offer a lower tier of the official VIP tours. Apparently there are a number of people willing to pay $180-250+/hour for tours that do not include back stage or front of the line access. Disney could start offering VIP Lite Tours for a lower price. We shall see.

Yeah, I’m with you on finances. Basically every corporate decision is tied back to finance in some fashion. Disney probably feels they can make more without the third party guides. Whether that is the case or not will be seen in the future.

My guess is it comes down to the "abuse" of the system. Perhaps Disney didn't care to much as long as it was below the radar and inside the rules. But once word got out that these tours were exploiting the system, it got their attention.

If I brought my cousins to Cedar Point and showed them a great time, great. I'm sure CP is happy that their one-time guests had a wonderful time in the hands of a regular. But if I brought them in and showed them how to get fake passes and otherwise game the system, they'd ask us all to leave and maybe revoke my pass. Whether there was wine involved or not.

What if you brought a guy to Cedar Point for his first visit and it rained the whole time?

It depends - is he your cousin?

And who changes his oil. And where.

Raven-Phile:

What if you brought a guy to Cedar Point for his first visit and it rained the whole time?

It depends on whether or not you stopped by Knoebels on your way.

Interesting. Reminds me a little of the “Escape from Tomorrow” controversy years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...Brainwash.

Raven-Phile:

What if you brought a guy to Cedar Point for his first visit and it rained the whole time?

Then he would get to experience the god awful Cedar Point weather closure policies on his very first visit!

bigboy:

It depends on whether or not you stopped by Knoebels on your way.

Funny you should say that...

(Yes, the whole thing is an inside joke between Josh, myself and some non-CB friends. But this thread has devolved far enough that I feel it's okay to post.)

Disney is a business. They have the complete right to not allow third party vendors to do business on the property.

This is no different than a t shirt vendor setting up in their parking lot IMO

as far as the permit system for these third-party tour vendors, that opens up a new door of liability for Disney that it probably is not worthwhile.

Do they have the right to do it? Sure. Did they do it the right way? Doesn't feel like it.

We've focused a great deal on guides instructing guests on how to get an ADA accommodation, but not on the guides who were doing the right thing and making a living out of it. In an instant, they are without jobs and income. I couldn't imagine. Do they qualify for unemployment to give them some kind of income while they figure things out?

I really don’t see how Disney is at any fault here. At any point, they have the right to do what they did. These tour guides took that risk the moment they set up their businesses.

Also, I’d have to believe that these folks had been warned. I just don’t see it as being very likely that this went from zero-to-trespassing. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would suspect that there was some sort of warning before it got this far.

Historically, unemployment benefits were not available to self-employed people. Could be available if they set their business up as an s-corp and treated themselves as employees. States expanded unemployment benefits to self-employed people during Covid based on CARES Act. But it varies by state. Not sure what Florida did.

Often though there is a "no fault of your own" limitation. Not sure how the third party guide would be viewed in this case. Though if there are people from this thread on the board determining eligibility for benefits, no doubt the answer will be absolutely not. LOL

sirloindude:

I’d have to believe that these folks had been warned.

I could easily believe they had no idea the trespass orders were coming. But I'm also not sure it matters.

The unemployment thing would be less of an issue if we had a functional safety net, but we don't. That's an entirely different conversation, and probably not one for this board.