I assume that the reason why this is being downvoted is because people disagree with the &quot;for money&quot; premise.  (I wish downvoters in this case would comment, rather than simply downvoting!)  Flytenow was operating under the provision that allows a private pilot to take a &quot;pro rata share&quot; of costs from a passenger, for a genuine &quot;common purpose&quot;.<p>I think that Flytenow, by their advertising, probably failed the &quot;common purpose&quot; test, but more than that, it failed the duck test -- it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck.  It looked like using a private pilot&#x27;s license for commercial activity.<p>As someone with a pilot pilot&#x27;s license, I think the FAA and the judicial branch made the right call.