Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it.<p>So I just skimmed over the ruling here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cadc.uscourts.gov&#x2F;internet&#x2F;opinions.nsf&#x2F;77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8&#x2F;$file&#x2F;14-1168-1589331.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cadc.uscourts.gov&#x2F;internet&#x2F;opinions.nsf&#x2F;77E3D4B7...</a><p>and you&#x27;re right (if you&#x27;re getting at what I think you&#x27;re getting at).<p>The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense sharing put it in common carrier land.<p>Which does seem to make sense under current rules.