[MiltonFriedman]

1. The distinction is one without a difference.

2. "As to their tactic of broadening the scope of coverage of the UIGEA, one obviously does not have to look far to see who is behind that position, i.e. Party Poker."

Sorry, Bluff, you blew that call.
First, the iMEGA argument is simply a bad, shortsighted piece of writing, by someone who did not think out the implications of what she or he was saying. I am certain the argument derived along the following lines .... Hey, everyone says we should have added affiliates as plaintiffs, okay then, argue why they have "standing".
Secondly, without getting into details, I am certain that there are no big-name poker plaintiffs behind this group. Look South, rather than across the Atlantic for whose interests are being represented. (I am told that numerous other groups have come forward since iMEGA filed to express support, but I will believe that when I see hard evidence.)

HOWEVER, there is a silver lining in their filing, the iMEGA treatment of what the Regs should say under Section 5364 of the Act is pretty good, and leans heavily toward "filters" as the best means to screen transactions. This would be a nice regulatory approach for poker if developed, as it kicks legality back to the State level..... no transactions from the 'bad" states, okay from the "good" states.

IMEGA will still lose on ripeness for certain as to the request to enjoin the Regs, but the layout is nice for POKER coments when the Regs are finally proposed ....

i.e Poker is not covered by the Act (i.e not betting or wagering or is skill or whatever), and should be protected under Section 5364(4).