> Being publicly connected with or being compensated by another entity would seem to me to present an arguable affiliation
It looks like it's a legitimate legal issue [1][2].
TL; DR It may make sense to explicitly clarify when you're using the term 'affiliate' as it is defined in 17 CFR § 230.601 / Rule 144 [3] versus "affiliate, including but not limited to []," or whatever.
It looks like it's a legitimate legal issue [1][2].
TL; DR It may make sense to explicitly clarify when you're using the term 'affiliate' as it is defined in 17 CFR § 230.601 / Rule 144 [3] versus "affiliate, including but not limited to []," or whatever.
[1] https://www.sackrosendin.com/blog/2017/03/landlord-loses-ove...
[2] https://casetext.com/case/iqbal-v-ziadeh-2
[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&...