While I don't care, I do understand why many others would care. If sharing is something that the restaurant decides hurts it to allow more than it hurts it to prohibit, then they'll take action against it, and while such action is typically proportional to how widespread and exploitive they perceive it to be, as we've seen with many things, new rules/enforcement often necessarily casts a wider net than just the exploitive activity -- folks not engaging in that activity are adversely affected. So again, while I don't care (because I don't feel the risk is high or the ramifications would be bad), I understand why others could care, and respect their position as such.I think this discussion is becoming ridiculous! What do people care if the table next to them is sharing a meal?
Keep in mind that there are rumors out there that Disney is looking to address a problem that some guests have expressed about how crowded the restaurants are. Now, I don't buy that (because I think the goal of the restaurants is to be absolutely packed all the time) but again, I respect that some folks might believe that Disney is aimng to do thing to balance the load a bit, and increasing revenues from putting in place fees or rules related to sharing may more than make up for the lost revenues you allude to.I also think that if Disney stops allowing sharing, it may cut into their pockets a bit, because there seems to be many people doing that. Families may feel that it isn't as great of a deal for them anymore. Just a thought!
However, using your numbers, 100% of a $50 meal is less than 70% of a $75 one! So if the rules only dissuade 30% of the guests, then the restaurant comes out a winner, and so do the restaurant's guests, since the restaurants will be less crowded.100% of say a $50 meal is more than 0% of a $75 one!