iMEGA on standing & ripeness

[MiltonFriedman]

In its eagerness to argue injury, iMEGA throws affiliates under the UIGEA bus. At pages 8 -9, iMEGA, in an incredibly stupid vein, argues that affiliate marketers are violating UIGEA because they somehow are conducting betting and wagering ..... Jesus, Mary and Joseph, protect us from our "friends".

Right, what we REALLY need is somoeone to jump up and offer an expansion of what Congress wrote in the UIGEA, to pull in POKER affiliates. The quoted Section 5362 language has NOTHING to do with affiliates, it deals with people who tell a site what amount is to be bet or wagered. Section 5363 itself is limited to businesses who bet or wager. AGAIN, clearly NOT an affiliate.

Nice job, iMEGA.... I now hope you lose quickly and quietly on Standing, before you do a greater disservice to poker players and related businesses in your thrashing about and trmapling on our rights.

[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