Now remember though guys:
If this is the way it sounds like it is going, Somer will have 10 days to cease RMT activities. Banning may or may not occur, who knows but CCP on that side.
Either way, Somer may not be able, or may not be eager to carry on at the rate they are.
Personally I'd advise anyone that still has an outstanding balance with them to cycle it through blinks and cash out as much as possible before the inevitable.
If once the dust settles they are still operating, then you could cash back in.

I most certainly wouldn't leave an outstanding payment and cross my fingers hoping they'll still pay out to the community once this storm hits. But that's just me.

Crossing the road was always against the law, just because some cops looked the other way for a few years does not change that fact.

yes, it would mean the rules are being applied fairly, for once. everyone else who shows the slightest hint of RMT gets a banhammer, but in this case we have clear evidence of massive ongoing RMT to the tune of over $135k over several years. if that isn't ban-worthy, i don't know what is.

Well no, not really. There was one cop, and there were lots of people loudly crossing the road and they stopped them crossing all the time. But the little old lady was quietly sneaking across the road, while the cop was busy elsewhere.
Now that everyone behaving themselves by not crossing the road has said "hey, look at that old lady, she's been crossing the road!", and some people have been saying "look, look at how I can cross the road sneakily", the cop now is changing how he enforces the already existing law to prevent the old lady crossing sneakily.
The old lady should get the chair since she's a far worse road crosser than a blatant road crosser, as she knowingly sneaks across the road!

Except the difference we are arguing is they didn't authorise the RMT. The fact that they authorised Somer to perform an in-game raffle on their behalf and stupidly stated they are legit does not mean they gave Somer permission to breach the EULA.

People here not quite understanding the point of an analogy. this one captures the salient details perfectly well. Pointing out places where it differs does not help. Analogous things are by definition different from the things they are analogous to. The point of this analogy is to illuminate one particular aspect of the case - that someone in a position of authority authorized certain behaviour and that it looks pretty odd when the same authority is now being called on to punish the behaviour they (may have) authorised.