[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
in an incredibly stupid vein, argues that affiliate marketers are violating UIGEA because they somehow are conducting betting and wagering .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I can see this as correct.

First, affiliates are not limited to directing you / me / us to a 'poker' site but also to Funds transfer sites Neteller comes to mind.

The UIGEA under defining a Transaction Service provider in 5362 (4) reads "A participant in such a network, or other participant in a designated payment system".

So, an affiliate that sends you to Neteller (comes to mind), receives a commission, is covered, as well by the UIGEA, making them a covered participant.

Also, in reading the reply, though IMEGA has never stated the exact names of members, we have some insight that gives us a clue to standing; member(s) are affiliates.

Unlike say the ACLU who has no direct connection to a case and NEEDS a specific individual to gain standing; IMEGA seems to have those members they are suing on behalf of.

It would be nice to know individual id's, the court may know though.

Thoughts?

obg