What to know about changes to Disney parks’ disability policies

Disney Faces Backlash Over Restrictive Disability Access Program Changes

Disabled visitors to Disney theme parks are fighting back against recent changes to a popular program that allows them to avoid long lines, claiming the entertainment giant has implemented overly restrictive eligibility requirements that exclude many who need accommodations.

The Disability Access Service (DAS) program, which allows qualified individuals and their families to make online ride reservations and use expedited lines, has become the center of a federal lawsuit and shareholder proposal demanding Disney expand its eligibility criteria.

“This isn’t right. This isn’t what Walt and Roy would have wanted,” said Shannon Bonadurer, who uses an ileostomy bag that prevents her from standing in long lines in hot weather. Despite her condition, Bonadurer was denied access to the program. Her 25-year-old son, who is blind and has cerebral palsy and autism, was also rejected.

The controversy highlights Disney’s ongoing struggle to balance accommodations for disabled guests while preventing the abuse that plagued earlier versions of the program. Before implementing stricter guidelines, Disney faced problems with “tour guides” charging able-bodied visitors hundreds of dollars to accompany them and skip lines by claiming disabilities.

According to Disney, the program needed reform because participation had grown exponentially. Court documents reveal that the percentage of guests using DAS passes increased from about 5% to 20% over the past twelve years, a fourfold increase that “showed no signs of slowing.”

Last year, Disney narrowed eligibility criteria to primarily focus on guests “due to a developmental disability such as autism or similar” who have difficulty waiting in extended lines. The revised system requires applicants to undergo video interviews with Disney employees and contracted medical professionals who determine eligibility. Those found to have misrepresented their conditions can be banned from the parks.

Critics argue this new approach is excessively limiting and puts Disney in the inappropriate position of judging the severity of disabilities.

“They are making a determination about whether you’re disabled enough,” Bonadurer, a professional travel adviser from Michigan, explained. “I would love to wait in line with everyone else, and so would my son, since that would mean he has a normal life. But we don’t, and unfortunately for us, we need adaptations to how we wait.”

In response to the federal lawsuit filed in California, Disney maintains that the Americans with Disabilities Act doesn’t require identical treatment for people with different disabilities. The company states it provides alternative accommodations for visitors who don’t meet the revised DAS criteria.

“For example, in a crowded movie theater, a person using a wheelchair may be entitled to priority seating even if they arrive shortly before the movie starts, while a deaf person may only be entitled to a seat with closed captioning,” Disney said in court filings.

The company does offer other accommodations throughout its parks, including Braille maps, wheelchair transfer devices for rides, quiet break locations, and American Sign Language interpreters for select shows. Some service animals are permitted on rides, and certain disabled guests can temporarily leave lines and rejoin their party before boarding.

Disney’s approach differs from its main competitor, Universal, which provides line-skipping privileges to disabled visitors who present a card issued by an international board certifying venues for accessibility.

The conflict has escalated beyond the courts. An advocacy group called DAS Defenders has submitted a shareholder proposal calling for Disney to commission an independent review of its disability policies and publicly release the findings. The group claims the DAS program changes have contributed to declining park attendance.

Disney’s attorneys have informed the Securities and Exchange Commission of plans to block this proposal ahead of the company’s 2026 shareholder meeting, arguing it contains misleading information about attendance declines, which the company attributes to hurricanes. Disney also contends the proposal constitutes inappropriate micromanagement of day-to-day operations.

As this dispute continues, it underscores the complex challenges facing entertainment venues as they try to provide inclusive experiences while maintaining operational efficiency and preventing system abuse.