[0_00_0]

Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it.

So I just skimmed over the ruling here:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7...

and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at).

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.

Which does seem to make sense under current rules.

[st2p]

Np. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong.

edit: wording