Unlawful Anti-Trust Practices that hurt you...

[Mark @SFX Industry Representative Find all posts View Profile Close Mark @SFX]

I would ask for an advisory opinion from the anti-trust division of the state Attorney General's office and also of the state Real Estate Commission (the body that in most states oversees timeshare exchanging). Resorts that do what you are describing are engaging in monopolisitic practices.

On the OBX, all resorts freely accept use of independents by their members. Some have even mailed out brochures of the independents with their newsletters.

The consumer protection laws of the state where the resort is located may also give members some remedies against these monopolistic practices. In North Carolina, a member denied the ability to exchange with an independent could sue the resort for treble damages plus attorney's fees. A mere letter from an attorney threatening to do that would probably jerk most resorts into line.

An exclusive agreement between certain exchange companies and a Resort (Developer and/or Association) means the Developer or Association will not endorse or promote the services of any other exchange company. It does NOT prohibit the individual Owners Legal Rights of requesting any company they want for service.

It is clearly defined in Legal Documents your Timeshare purchase is "Separate and Distinct" from the use of an exchange company. In other words, under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, (Federal Anti-Trust Laws) I believe it is illegal to create a Tying Relationship between a product that is separate from a Service. Service is an independent entity. Just like with buying a car from a dealer... it is unlawful for them to force you into using the service of any specific company; It is your choice, and it's no different with a Timeshare.

States have their own Anti-Trust laws in addition to Federal. The State laws use primarily the Federal Sherman Act and Clayton Act as the model.

Both Federal and State laws prohibit certain actions that create Monopoly, Restraint of Trade, Tying Relationships, Market Division, Price Fixing and Boycotting. Anti-competitive practices that do not allow competition and create the above conditions thus forcing consumers to pay higher prices (such as above) are serious violations of both Federal and State Laws and should be reported to both the Anti-Trust division of your Attorney General's Office, and the Federal Trade Commission.

You may want to point this out to your Board of Directors before taking such action. Unfortunately they are in a position of leadership, but with unqualified credentials.

[Jane T Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jane T]

Forced alliance with RCI

Royal Holiday Club requires that all-inclusive fees be paid by unit owners in advance ( in our case approx $130 per day ) on top of the maintenance fee ( approx. $550 per week) if we want to deposit with any other exchange company than RCI. If we deposit with RCI, only the maintenace fee is due. There is clearly a conspiarcy to force us to use RCI. Our original contract was at a time when all-inclusive did not exist at the resort, therefore we did not agree to such terms. As in all issues with Royal Holiday Club, they are not a US company. therefore the Sherman Act and the Clayton may not be relevant ?