A disabled Disney shareholder is pushing for an independent review of the company's controversial 2024 Disability Access Service overhaul, but a recent SEC rule change is making it significantly easier for Disney to block the resolution from reaching a shareholder vote.
Erik Paul's shareholder resolution asks Disney to hire an independent expert to assess the legal, financial, and reputational risks associated with the DAS changes. The resolution requests that Disney commission a qualified third party to review the company's accessibility and disability inclusion practices, evaluate policies against international standards and competitors, and identify improvement opportunities. It also asks Disney's Board to provide both a public summary and internal briefing on findings.
Disney filed a letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4 requesting permission to exclude the resolution, arguing it's “materially false and misleading,” relates to “ordinary business operations,” and that Disney has “substantially implemented” what the proposal requests. Two weeks later, the SEC announced it would no longer review company exclusion requests except in limited circumstances. The rule change took effect immediately, meaning Disney can now block Paul's resolution without SEC approval.
What Paul's Resolution Actually Says
The shareholder proposal doesn't demand Disney reverse the DAS changes or restore the old system. Instead, it asks for something more measured: an independent assessment of what happened and what risks Disney now faces.
The specific language requests that “Disney commission an independent review, conducted by a qualified third party, of the company's accessibility and disability inclusion practices. This review should assess legal, financial, and reputational risks; evaluate Disney's policies against international accessibility standards and competitors; and identify opportunities for leadership improvement.” The resolution further requests that the Board provide a public summary and internal briefing on findings to ensure accountability and transparency.
It's a relatively modest request that doesn't threaten specific policy changes or litigation. Disney fighting to exclude even this proposal suggests the company either sees no benefit in such a review or fears what an independent assessment might reveal.
Why Disney Says It Should Be Excluded
Disney's November 4 SEC letter provided three arguments for excluding Paul's resolution.
First, the resolution is “materially false and misleading,” meaning Disney believes it contains factually incorrect statements that would confuse shareholders about what they're voting on.
Second, it “relates to the Company's ordinary business operations.” This common exclusion ground allows companies to block proposals dealing with day-to-day operational decisions rather than major policy issues. Disney's position is that DAS policies are operational matters management should control without shareholder interference.
Third, Disney claims it has “substantially implemented the Proposal,” arguing the company already does what the resolution requests, making the proposal moot.
Paul submitted a rebuttal challenging these arguments, but the SEC rule change means no one at the SEC will evaluate whether Disney's exclusion justifications actually have merit. Disney can simply exclude the resolution based on its own determination.
The SEC Rule Change That Shifted Everything
The November 17 SEC announcement fundamentally changed shareholder proposal dynamics. Previously, companies wanting to exclude shareholder proposals had to request SEC approval by explaining why exclusion grounds applied. SEC staff would review company arguments and shareholder rebuttals before deciding whether exclusion was appropriate.
This process provided shareholders meaningful protection. An independent regulatory body evaluated whether exclusion justifications were legitimate rather than letting companies decide based on preference.
The new rule eliminates that oversight except in narrow state-law circumstances. Companies can now exclude shareholder proposals based on their own interpretation of whether exclusion grounds apply, with no SEC review checking whether those interpretations are reasonable.
For Paul's resolution, the timing was particularly unfortunate. Disney filed its exclusion request November 4. The SEC rule change took effect November 17. If the change had occurred even a month later, the SEC would have reviewed Disney's arguments and Paul's rebuttal. Instead, Disney can exclude the resolution without external oversight.
The DAS Changes That Started This
Disney updated DAS requirements at Walt Disney World and Disneyland Resort in early 2024, significantly limiting eligibility. The changes left many guests who previously qualified unable to access DAS under new rules.
Disney suggested alternatives like practicing waiting in line at home or requesting return times at attractions, though many cast members haven't been trained to offer return times, creating confusion and inconsistent experiences.
A class-action lawsuit filed in February 2025 against Disneyland alleges disability discrimination based on the DAS changes. The case is ongoing, adding legal risk to the reputational concerns Paul's resolution highlights.
Disney has continued tweaking DAS elements since the initial overhaul, including adding information about the required video call and extending the service's validity period. These ongoing adjustments suggest Disney recognizes implementation problems even as it fights to avoid independent review.
The modifications affect real people with disabilities who planned Disney vacations expecting accommodations they'd previously received. Guests have shared experiences of being denied DAS despite qualifying under previous criteria, receiving conflicting information from different cast members, or being told to use alternatives that don't work for their specific disabilities.
What Paul Says About Disney's Response
Paul's statement captures the irony of Disney's position: “Disney has long told stories where the powerless rise, villains fall, and wrongs are made right. Its brand is built on magic, inclusion, and the belief that every voice deserves to be heard. Yet now, in a twist worthy of its darkest tales, the company risks becoming the villain of its own story, using newfound power to silence the very shareholders it should be listening to. Disney now faces a clear choice: live up to the values it sells to the world, or step into the role of villain silencing the disabled community.”
The statement highlights the disconnect between Disney's brand messaging about inclusion and its resistance to independent review of disability policies.
What Happens Now
The shareholder resolution likely won't proceed to a vote. Disney can exclude it based on the company's own determination that exclusion grounds apply, with no SEC oversight checking whether that determination is reasonable.
The ongoing lawsuit will take years to resolve. In the meantime, the 2024 DAS changes remain in effect, with Disney making incremental adjustments without the independent review Paul requested.
For disabled guests planning Disney vacations, the situation offers little immediate recourse. If a shareholder can't get a resolution calling for independent review onto a proxy ballot, regular disabled guests have even fewer mechanisms to challenge company policies.
Disney's use of corporate and regulatory mechanisms to block even modest requests for independent assessment undermines the brand values of inclusion the company markets to the world.
Thank you for this. I felt seen, and I have felt so discarded as a Disney fan! The disabled community has rights!!!!