That's another great question that no one seems to be able to answer satisfactorily.
Companies like Cedar Fair and Six Flags have a lot more theme parks than Disney does. And they use a system that is even more restrictive than Disney's DAS currently is. Why not sue them instead, or at least in addition to Disney?
Because it's more about publicity and recovering attorneys fees in settlement, not about actual relief.
It is easy to assume that from the outside, and it may partially be true. But you are missing an important part of the equation.
First: necessary disclaimer so I don't get jumped on. I am not in favor of the lawsuit. DAS works for me, and I always approached GAC as if it wouldn't last because it felt too good to be true.
The part you are missing that can give you a clue as to motivations here, is that Disney has for years fostered a sub-culture of families with autism who obsess over Disney World.
To understand that, you have to understand that people with autism thrive on routine and repetition. All cases are different obviously, but the vast majority of children with autism will have trouble going to new places, trying new things, or having new experiences in any way. Disney saw early that their rides appeal to the sensory seeking aspect of autism. Gentle rides in comfortable environments. Places like Universal and Six Flags have little appeal to a great number of people with autism because thrill rides are too intense for many. My son, won't generally won't go on anything faster than the drop on pirates. Autism forces you to experience all sensory input like an exposed nerve, so even a gentle drop can feel like an intense coaster. Non-Disney parks don't have much to offer on the gentle ride front. Again, some will differ, but for the most part an intense sensory experience isn't what someone with autism is looking for.
So, Disney being the shrewd player they are, has developed the ultimate captive audience. The GAC allowed so many guests to come try Disney World. Trust me, within the niches of the internet that cater to parents of kids with autism, the GAC represented the land of milk and honey. "You mean there's someplace I can take my family on vacation that won't result in a horrible experience filled with crying and meltdowns". That appeal allowed families who often don't vacation at all due to the difficulties to give Disney a try. And within those safe environs, and with an atypical experience of their child being in a social setting and not melting down, they became addicted.
I've tried taking my son to other vacation destinations (theme parks and non). He has no interest. I'd love to get to Universal someday. I've never seen any of HP. But my son has no interest, so it proves far too much a risk for me. My son is locked into Disney World. It is the only place in the world where my family can go and I can predict the outcome. I assume that the plaintiffs in this suit are in the same boat.
Someone before said it was like they were used to a Ferrari and then given a ford. I get the sentiment. But is more as if they were used to a ford, and now must ride the bus. Because for many of these families, there is no alternative. They may not be able to take vacations at all anymore. I am very lucky that we got my son to adapt to lack of GAC use before the change, or I would probably be selling my DVC membership now.
All that said though. The plaintiffs have no valid legal claim here as far as I can see. This is pure selfishness as some claim. But it is not the cynical kind of selfishness I think that many assume. It is a desperate cry because they are losing the one normal thing in their lives that they clinged to. Something they will likely not be able to replace. It is because of that that I feel sorry for them, even if I don't agree with the suit. Disney created this culture of Disney addicts, and then took away their fix. People will lash out irrationally when that happens. Right or wrong.
.
