I assume that the reason why this is being downvoted is because people disagree with the "for money" 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 "pro rata share" of costs from a passenger, for a genuine "common purpose".

I think that Flytenow, by their advertising, probably failed the "common purpose" 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's license for commercial activity.

As someone with a pilot pilot's license, I think the FAA and the judicial branch made the right call.