It seems really odd to me that AirBnb is being included in this list.

    57. Defendant Airbnb, Inc. allows its customers to rent the homes of other
    customers for varying durations, in lieu of a hotel. To process each 
    transaction it holds onto the customer’s funds, and remits those funds
    to the property owner at the conclusion of the stay, minus its fee.

Well, okay, but wouldn't this apply to every company that acts as a marketplace between buyers and sellers?

Is the point of this to show the absurdity of the scope of the Money Transmission Act?