Families of autistic kids sue Disney parks over policy on lines

[No Time To Say Hello Goodbye]

Time is a valuable thing. Money is also valuable. There are conditions and disorders that make it hard to understand abstract concepts like money. A quick search shows that this is a common symptom of fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS/E.
Now, visiting a shop or restaurant is as much a part of the Disney experience as going on a ride, so no one should be excluded. So imagine going into a gift shop and you see a child bring an item to the counter and hand over a dollar bill. The cashier tells him this is not enough for the item. The parent shows a card to the cashier and he sells the child the item for a dollar. Surprised you ask the parent about the card. Well, my child has a condition where he can't understand how money works- if you go to town hall and tell them, they'll give you a card where your child can get anything he wants for whatever he thinks it's worth. You might immediately run to city hall yourself and see if this is true and if your family qualifies- or you may question the parent on whether or not such a system seems fair, after all your child has been mulling over a purchase for the last half hour trying to figure out what a season's worth of chores might buy. The parent says what business is it of yours- that what they're doing doesn't effect the cost of your item, and besides, Disney has had this policy for years. If their child can't get the item he'll have a meltdown and that's not good for anyone. You should be happy to have a child who can understand value and exchange of goods and services. This comment is made with no understanding of your family's own health or financial status which is most likely far from ideal.
Not trying to be rude, just trying to offer a somewhat exaggerated take on where the precedent of this court ruling could lead.

I can already do that. My 4 yr old hands the cashier three dollars for a toy, I hand over my credit card, and the cashier smiles and tells my daughter "here is your change sweetie" as I sign the credit card receipt. Of course, then I. Get home, and because I CAN understand the concept of money I look at my credit card bill after a trip to Disney

 

[GoofGoof]

Time is a valuable thing. Money is also valuable. There are conditions and disorders that make it hard to understand abstract concepts like money. A quick search shows that this is a common symptom of fetal alcohol syndrome or FAS/E.
Now, visiting a shop or restaurant is as much a part of the Disney experience as going on a ride, so no one should be excluded. So imagine going into a gift shop and you see a child bring an item to the counter and hand over a dollar bill. The cashier tells him this is not enough for the item. The parent shows a card to the cashier and he sells the child the item for a dollar. Surprised you ask the parent about the card. Well, my child has a condition where he can't understand how money works- if you go to town hall and tell them, they'll give you a card where your child can get anything he wants for whatever he thinks it's worth. You might immediately run to city hall yourself and see if this is true and if your family qualifies- or you may question the parent on whether or not such a system seems fair, after all your child has been mulling over a purchase for the last half hour trying to figure out what a season's worth of chores might buy. The parent says what business is it of yours- that what they're doing doesn't effect the cost of your item, and besides, Disney has had this policy for years. If their child can't get the item he'll have a meltdown and that's not good for anyone. You should be happy to have a child who can understand value and exchange of goods and services. This comment is made with no understanding of your family's own health or financial status which is most likely far from ideal.
Not trying to be rude, just trying to offer a somewhat exaggerated take on where the precedent of this court ruling could lead.

Somewhat exaggerated????

 

[RSoxNo1]

This argument assumes all waiting in all places is equal. Which may or may not be true for the individual. You also gloss over how someone can cope with the varied situations and instead only look at all include 'a wait'.

Which is why I said.. you need to focus on the test of if the limitation and disability meet the legal requirements. Not if you think it's fair, or reasonable, or whatever. Qualify the legitimacy of the claimed limitation on it's own merits.

I'm not defending their claim - but you have to dissect it in the context of the law, not mob think.

This is another excellent point. We've utilized the GAC for years with my autistic brother. In Disneyland last August, his biggest "issues" occurred when we were waiting 30-40 minutes for Splash Mountain in their designated area for guests with mobility issues (my brother doesn't have mobility issues but they stamped the GAC with a "no stairs" stamp as well for some reason). Without getting into details, my brother was being inappropriate in the line and had we been waiting in a regular line with more people around we would have had to remove him from the situation. While his behavior was far from preferred we were in a relatively isolated area.

As for changes to the DAS program, the main thing I would like to see is that it would be integrated with the mobile app. The need to get a time stamp at an attraction is the biggest "issue" in my mind. Like @ParentsOf4 said, the Universal system is preferred from an ease of use standpoint. The biggest difference is the 10 minutes vs. 30 minutes debate. Having said that, integrating Disney's system with the mobile app would alleviate most of these concerns for my family.

The biggest thing the guardians need to look at here is how this effects the individual with the disability. For my brother, I fully expect this to be transparent to him, despite the potential for additional scheduling for us. Transparency to him is the most important thing.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Interesting you mention that example because I've been to National Parks where some trails have been modified for those in wheelchairs.

Please read some of the earlier posts on this thread.

Autism is a spectrum disorder. That means, for example, someone with severe symptoms will never be able to visit WDW. As you wrote, "If they absolutely cannot wait", then Disney does not need to accommodate them because there would be no way to reasonably do so. ADA requires a reasonable accommodation, not an absolute accommodation.

At the other end of the spectrum, some probably don't need DAS.

In between, some might need DAS to be accommodated. Some might need something more.

It's important to remember that there probably are those with an ADA-protected disability that will need varying degrees of accommodation. By law, Disney must accommodate those who can be reasonably accommodated.

What's reasonable and who needs to be accommodated is what the lawsuit is all about.

While I agree that autism is a spectrum disorder, let's not pretend that because it's a spectrum disorder the term autism is always used correctly. There is a significant difference between being autistic and being on the autism spectrum.

 

[armyfamilyof5]

It's wonderful to see such a diverse group able to have a discussion without name calling and disrespect! I feel that everyone should have to wait their turn, if they need to do it in a shop or while eating lunch due to a disability then so be it. One parent went into great detail why waiting on queue with her child is not possible and another explained how he was able to transition his child to learning to wait, these examples just go to show all disabilities are not the same. As I understand it from the previous posts wait times for all have gone down as previously 1/5 of all riders were using GAC and DAS has leveled the playing field for all guests. It appears the fix would be allowing DAS guests to go to a kiosk to get their return times rather than to the actual ride which would prevent some of the meltdowns families deal with. One of my children has ADHD and it's miserable to have to wait in a long line with him so we used fastpasses or just don't take him. It was not pleasant for him but we are blessed to not have to deal with "meltdowns".

One woman compared these meltdowns to her 20 month old child which seems a good rational as many of the children with autism being discussed have the same mentality of a 2 -3 year old, I have actually had my lip split while trying to subdue a 3 year old during a tantrum, my friend had her front tooth broken by her 4 year old during a tantrum so I can attest the bigger the size the more difficult it would be to handle the child! I think Disney is doing what it can to stop the abuse while still accommodating individuals with disabilities and have spend millions of dollars in the process. I hope individuals with special needs find a way to make the DAS policy work for them or work with Disney to find fair and workable solutions as it's been proven full freedom to a front of the line pass will be abused.

 

[rct247]

Trust me on the proof. I think Disney has done their research. Disney has secret shoppers that visit the ticket sellers around Walt Disney World. They know that GAC cards were being sold and they can probably prove that. They collected data on how many people entering the Fastpass lines were with a GAC. They are also doing is a little less and more sporatically but also with Fastpass+ issues and with DAS. They probably have websites and conversations galore on the topics.

The data will also prove that the amount of people using the system was altering the experience for other guests and the operations. Carsland had to give out less Fastpasses because of it. Now the amount of people using the system doesn't prove abuse, but the facts about the old system on how easy it was to get, how it was so generous, and the conversations from casts and guests about seeing repeat riders, people admit they were lying, etc all showed that maybe a change needed to be made to at least make the system a little more equal.

Of course, changing a policy and system doesn't happen overnight. Disney once again did it's research talking with disability advocacy groups, area leaders & cast members, looked at other systems in place at other parks, and look at what the underlying issues were with GAC that made it so vulnerable for abuse effectively ruining it for those who need it.

The result is the DAS which did make things a little more equal, did cut down on the amount of people using it, did still take into account the majority of those with cognitive disabilities, and didn't affect operations near as much as the GAC did. One can only assume that the lowered amount of usage could be that those abusing it find it not worth fighting for. You also have to admit that it won't benefit everyone and it won't fit everyone's specific needs.

 

[ParentsOf4]

The result is the DAS which did make things a little more equal, did cut down on the amount of people using it, did still take into account the majority of those with cognitive disabilities, and didn't affect operations near as much as the GAC did. One can only assume that the lowered amount of usage could be that those abusing it find it not worth fighting for. You also have to admit that it won't benefit everyone and it won't fit everyone's specific needs.

Disney's problem is in the areas I highlighted. Per ADA, Disney must accommodate everyone with disabilities, if there is a way to reasonably do so.

The new system is more effective than GAC because GAC was too much. GAC provided everyone with disabilities (and those who only claimed to have disabilities) with more than what they needed to accommodate their disabilities.

The plaintiffs claim that DAS insufficiently accommodates their disabilities, and they suggest there is a way to reasonably accommodate theirs.

When I read the lawsuit, I don't take away from it that the plaintiffs want a return to GAC.

The plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Magic List referenced in the lawsuit probably is sufficient for their cognitive disabilities, but it needs to be administered more effectively.

 

[GoofGoof]

Disney's problem is in the areas I highlighted. Per ADA, Disney must accommodate everyone with disabilities, if there is a way to reasonably do so.

The new system is more effective than GAC because GAC was too much. GAC provided everyone with disabilities (and those who only claimed to have disabilities) with more than what they needed to accommodate their disabilities.

The plaintiffs claim that DAS insufficiently accommodates their disabilities, and they suggest there is a way to reasonably accommodate theirs.

When I read the lawsuit, I don't take away from it that the plaintiffs want a return to GAC.

The plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Magic List referenced in the lawsuit probably is sufficient for their cognitive disabilities, but it needs to be administered more effectively.

Isn't the "magic list" essentially the VIP treatment with immediate access to rides without any waiting? Something for celebrities and dignitaries. Maybe that's a different "magic list" then the one they talk about.

I could see them being happy with that, but we get back to the whole issue of proof and who gets added to the "magic list".

 

[GoofGoof]

I pulled out the section on the magic list:

"58c. Even after conjuring up the DAS (disability access service), Disney created a Magic List concept. Disney refuses to publicize its Magic List, lest it actually become widely known within the autistic community.

60. The Magic List does not perfectly accommodate the special needs of all persons with cognitive impairments, but it is considerably better than the recklessly inadequate DAS card.

61. Disney is withholding the existence of the “Magic List” from the broader community of families in which someone has a cognitive impairment. By doing so, Disney continues to deter families from visiting the Parks or making plans to do so. Families of persons with developmental disabilities or cognitive impairments remain unwilling to return to the Parks, in fear that the disabled person will experience otherwise avoidable meltdowns and otherwise be subjected to discrimination and humiliation in the Parks. If the accommodation to be provided to persons on the Magic List were refined, and if the Magic List were made known to disabled persons and their families to allow them to predict their likely experience prior to incurring the risk and investment of traveling to the Parks, this deterrence would be substantially reduced or eliminated.

62. As alleged above, Disney possesses sophisticated knowledge of the special needs of persons with cognitive impairments. Disney did not impossible one-accommodation-fits-all DAS, Disney began inconsistently, arbitrarily and capriciously doling out still another occasional accommodation, internally known as the “Magic List.” The Magic List is a secret list of persons to whom Disney will automatically extend, without the stigma of a “Disability” card, and without a mandatory photograph, and without the newly-ingrained disrespect of Disney employees, five immediate-entry, no-appointment ride passes.

63. Kept a secret “Magic List” of persons Disney is willing to accommodate, without disseminating information about the existence of the list, and without advising the public as to the criteria which is being used by Disney to exclude many disabled persons from the Magic List while making it available to others;"


So basically anyone on the list gets 5 front of the line passes. Sounds like a Club 33 benefit. From the Club 33 Member Benefits Page:

"Members may also obtain six FASTPASS tickets per visit, which may be utilized immediately upon the specific attraction."

For WDW if you are visiting any park other than MK that should easily work. It wouldn't allow a lot of repeats, but it would get you into each ride that could potentially have a long line. There are some logistical issues like how far in advance do you need to book and what happens if a ride goes down during the day. I can't speak for the disabled or their parents, but I would agree with the plaintiffs that this seems fair. However, there would need to be a way to ensure that only those with a true need get on the list. Back to the issue of requiring proof. They would also need to make sure that the disabled person is present and going on the ride. Otherwise those 5 bonus fast passes could be sold for a profit. Sad, but true

 

[ParentsOf4]

Isn't the "magic list" essentially the VIP treatment with immediate access to rides without any waiting? Something for celebrities and dignitaries. Maybe that's a different "magic list" then the one they talk about.

I could see them being happy with that, but we get back to the whole issue of proof and who gets added to the "magic list".

One of the common misrepresentations (I've read it in a couple of news media articles) is that the plaintiffs are demanding unrestricted immediate access to attractions. This is grossly untrue.

GAC never was immediate access to attractions. GAC (as allowed to be used by Disney) was unlimited FP/FP+. The plaintiffs are not demanding a return to GAC.

Disney offers a VIP service, which involves being escorted by a CM and includes unlimited FP/FP+:

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/ev...tour-services/

The price is $315-to-$380 per hour, with a six-hour minimum.

Disney still offers (for free) unlimited front-of-the-line access to those from the Make-A-Wish Foundation (children with life-threatening illnesses).

Per the lawsuit, it appears the Magic List was something that was created when DAS was rolled out. Per the lawsuit, it's essentially another 5 unrestricted FP/FP+. Quoting from the lawsuit:

The Magic List is a secret list of persons to whom Disney will automatically extend, without the stigma of a “Disability” card, and without a mandatory photograph, and without the newly-ingrained disrespect of Disney employees, five immediate-entry, no-appointment ride passes.​

To me, it seems that Disney recognized on its own that simple DAS was not enough to accommodate certain cognitive disabilities and created an unpublicized system to accommodate people with those disabilities, recognizing that the old unlimited FP/FP+ (i.e. GAC) was unfair to those without disabilities and more than what was required by ADA.

To me, it seems like Disney tried to do the right thing but had rollout issues with the new DAS/ML system.

My interpretation of the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs would be willing to accept the Magic List, but have had some bad experiences with it in practice, the primary one being unable to get on the list in the first place.

 

[landauh]

Actually there was one type of GAC that was a front-of-line card. It was the green card. This card was for individuals that have a terminal illness with less than two years to live. I don't know what the Magic List is but would not be surprised to find out that it is a replacement for the green GAC. By-the-way green GACs were not available at the parks, a doctor or agency needed to write to Disney to get one.

 

[fosse76]

Disney does not have to prove why they changed from GAC to DAS. Disney is only required to prove that the DAS is compliant with the ADA. Reasons for the change from GAC to DAS are, quite frankly, irrelevant. The ADA is about physical access and accommodation. And to be clear, I am not just referring to wheelchair accessibilty. That's not only what is meant by physical accessibility. If a mental disability prohibits a guest from being able to safely maneuver their way through a queue (for whatever reason), then Disney must have an alternate accessibility plan that is reasonable, because the law says they need to be able to get to the ride. Long wait times in and of themselves do not prohibit physical access to the ride. If someone with autism goes to the ride and is unable to navigate the standby queue, but is able to maneuver through the exit or FP queue, then Disney has met the ADA requirements for accessibilty. Disney can issue a return time that is equivalent to the standby wait time, because Disney is not preventing physical access. As such, there is no ADA violation. It is not Disney’s responsibility to create “relief” from breakdowns because having to come back at a different time may create one. That is not the ADA’s purpose.

The irony of all of this is that the ADA does not apply to the rides themselves. So while theme parks must have platform access requirements for people with disabilities, they can actually refuse to allow people to ride without violating any law.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney does not have to prove why they changed from GAC to DAS. Disney is only required to prove that the DAS is compliant with the ADA. Reasons for the change from GAC to DAS are, quite frankly, irrelevant.

Correct - but it will be part of the discussion because people will argue the DAS doesn't address their limitations, and if that is agreed, then Disney will have to defend why the GAC is not a reasonable accommodation for them to provide.

If someone with autism goes to the ride and is unable to navigate the standby queue, but is able to maneuver through the exit or FP queue, then Disney has met the ADA requirements for accessibilty. Disney can issue a return time that is equivalent to the standby wait time, because Disney is not preventing physical access. As such, there is no ADA violation

An accessible route is NOT the limit of a public accommodation's responsibility. 'accessible route' is only one part of the law. Ponder this.. If accessible route was the limit of the law - why would you need to give people hearing assistance devices, braille menus, or read menus to people?

The irony of all of this is that the ADA does not apply to the rides themselves. So while theme parks must have platform access requirements for people with disabilities, they can actually refuse to allow people to ride without violating any law.

The attractions are covered under the ADA - there just happens to be a lot of 'outs' preventing most from having to bow to the common denominator. Look up 'amusement ride' in the design standards... or if you'd like a specific guide on the topic - see
http://www.access-board.gov/guideli...on-facilities/guides/guide-on-amusement-rides

You may be particularly interested in the 'accessible ride vehicle' standards... which totally debunk your statements.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Disney does not have to prove why they changed from GAC to DAS. Disney is only required to prove that the DAS is compliant with the ADA. Reasons for the change from GAC to DAS are, quite frankly, irrelevant. The ADA is about physical access and accommodation. And to be clear, I am not just referring to wheelchair accessibilty. That's not only what is meant by physical accessibility. If a mental disability prohibits a guest from being able to safely maneuver their way through a queue (for whatever reason), then Disney must have an alternate accessibility plan that is reasonable, because the law says they need to be able to get to the ride. Long wait times in and of themselves do not prohibit physical access to the ride. If someone with autism goes to the ride and is unable to navigate the standby queue, but is able to maneuver through the exit or FP queue, then Disney has met the ADA requirements for accessibilty. Disney can issue a return time that is equivalent to the standby wait time, because Disney is not preventing physical access. As such, there is no ADA violation. It is not Disney’s responsibility to create “relief” from breakdowns because having to come back at a different time may create one. That is not the ADA’s purpose.

The irony of all of this is that the ADA does not apply to the rides themselves. So while theme parks must have platform access requirements for people with disabilities, they can actually refuse to allow people to ride without violating any law.

The plaintiffs are claiming that long wait times do act as barriers to access to the rides since, as a result of their children's ADA-protected disabilities, their children cannot tolerate those extended waits.

I don't understand how you can claim ADA does not apply to the rides themselves. Disney clearly has made physical modifications to rides to accommodate wheelchairs. Whether it's a physical or cognitive disability, ADA provides protection to both types of disabilities. You logic seems to be that if a movie theater provides wheelchair access to the lobby, then it doesn’t need to provide wheelchair access to the theater itself.

What ADA requires is reasonable accommodation, not absolute accommodation. Per ADA, discrimination occurs when there is a "failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations".

Per the Federal government's ADA webpage:

“What is a fundamental alteration? A fundamental alteration is a modification that is so significant that it alters the essential nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered.”

What constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” or a “fundamental alteration” has been discussed on this thread at length.

I very much am hoping for a ruling on this to see how this is settled by the courts.

 

[armyfamilyof5]

According to http://www.disneybymark.com/2014/04/13/lawsuit-sheds-light-disney-parks-magic-list/ the magic list was a VIP list created by Walt himself and includes D33 members and movie stars and such, not children with special needs that are unable to stand in queue. It's apparent by this lawsuit that these families do feel their children deserve VIP treatment at Disney because of their special needs without understanding that all of us feel our children are VIP's also! If Disney were to make a magic list for all children that visit Disney with special needs and Disney had to pay someone to escorted them around the park I imagine admission prices would have to be raise so significantly lots of us would just not be able to go anymore. Hopefully a judge will dismiss this nonsense and those people can move on. Obviously they are disgruntled to loose the GAC perk, anyone in that situation would be, but their energy would be better spent scouring boards such as ours and networking with other parents of children with disabilities to find a way to make the new DAS work for them. We have a great group of people here that would be more than happy to help!

 

[ParentsOf4]

According to http://www.disneybymark.com/2014/04/13/lawsuit-sheds-light-disney-parks-magic-list/ the magic list was a VIP list created by Walt himself and includes D33 members and movie stars and such, not children with special needs that are unable to stand in queue. It's apparent by this lawsuit that these families do feel their children deserve VIP treatment at Disney because of their special needs without understanding that all of us feel our children are VIP's also! If Disney were to make a magic list for all children that visit Disney with special needs and Disney had to pay someone to escorted them around the park I imagine admission prices would have to be raise so significantly lots of us would just not be able to go anymore. Hopefully a judge will dismiss this nonsense and those people can move on. Obviously they are disgruntled to loose the GAC perk, anyone in that situation would be, but their energy would be better spent scouring boards such as ours and networking with other parents of children with disabilities to find a way to make the new DAS work for them. We have a great group of people here that would be more than happy to help!

Thanks for posting that.

Quoting from the article: “It was devised, by Walt Disney, as a VIP list that would enable notable guests the ability to visit the park without public scrutiny of standing in line. Generally they were escorted by a tour guide.”

Um, this is Disney’s VIP service:

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/events-tours/vip-tour-services/

Available for as little as $315/hour with only a 6-hour minimum.

Not sure why you think we’d have to pay more to accommodate children with special needs who want “five immediate-entry, no-appointment ride passes” (the lawsuit’s description of Magic List).

As posted earlier on this thread, a CM noted that wait times were reduced as a result of the change from GAC to DAS. GAC, as you recall, was handed out rather indiscriminately and was pretty much unlimited FP/FP+, much more generous than the Magic List described in the lawsuit.

Many more than children with special needs received GAC. That’s why we had the Manhattan Moms abusing the system. Does this mean that Disney has lowered its prices as a result of the savings realized?

 

[GoofGoof]

According to http://www.disneybymark.com/2014/04/13/lawsuit-sheds-light-disney-parks-magic-list/ the magic list was a VIP list created by Walt himself and includes D33 members and movie stars and such, not children with special needs that are unable to stand in queue. It's apparent by this lawsuit that these families do feel their children deserve VIP treatment at Disney because of their special needs without understanding that all of us feel our children are VIP's also! If Disney were to make a magic list for all children that visit Disney with special needs and Disney had to pay someone to escorted them around the park I imagine admission prices would have to be raise so significantly lots of us would just not be able to go anymore. Hopefully a judge will dismiss this nonsense and those people can move on. Obviously they are disgruntled to loose the GAC perk, anyone in that situation would be, but their energy would be better spent scouring boards such as ours and networking with other parents of children with disabilities to find a way to make the new DAS work for them. We have a great group of people here that would be more than happy to help!

I don't think they are looking for the escort around the park or full VIP treatment, just 5 bonus FP selections. While that is still a VIP privilege (for Club 33 members) it seems from the lawsuit that maybe DL was offering it to some disabled guests to make up for losing the GAC. This is part of the problem of trying to be flexible with people. If you offer it to some people who explain their issues, but don't systematically offer it to everyone and you don't advertise it then you get sued. Probably why being flexible isn't as easy as it sounds.

 

[armyfamilyof5]

Does this mean that Disney has lowered its prices as a result of the savings realized?

What savings are you referring to? I may be mistaken but it appears Magic List individuals get an escort which would be costly to Disney. Am I missing something, I don't understand.

 

[GoofGoof]

What savings are you referring to? I may be mistaken but it appears Magic List individuals get an escort which would be costly to Disney. Am I missing something, I don't understand.

They aren't looking for an escort. They call it a "magic list" concept but it's not the same thing as the Magic List referenced in the article you posted. I thought it was too when PO4 first mentioned it, but after reading the description I'm pretty sure it's not the same thing. Here's the section where they talk about magic list in the lawsuit.

62. As alleged above, Disney possesses sophisticated knowledge of the special needs of persons with cognitive impairments. Disney did not impossible one-accommodation-fits-all DAS, Disney began inconsistently, arbitrarily and capriciously doling out still another occasional accommodation, internally known as the “Magic List.” TheMagic List is a secret list of persons to whom Disney will automatically extend, without the stigma of a “Disability” card, and without a mandatory photograph, and without the newly-ingrained disrespect of Disney employees, five immediate-entry, no-appointment ride passes.

 

[EricJ]

Many more than children with special needs received GAC. That’s why we had the Manhattan Moms abusing the system. Does this mean that Disney has lowered its prices as a result of the savings realized?

Wait...the scam-artists had a NAME? (And presumably a website?)
I'm not just saying that as a handicap guest who's not amused, I've also been around long enough to remember "Howie's Angels" screwing up the character-breakfast system.

Beware the "system-beating" fans with club names...