One is a good, a tangible product.
The other is a service.
Split the hairs if we must, all the cases I’ve seen sighted thus far deal with tangible products. Not services.
If they want to create an Economic Service Clause Amendment, then I say...let’s have at it.
This is a very sneaky thing they try to do with insurance and medical services. Redefining it without ever challanging it. As I posted on another thread, show me the CFR that does this. Case law so far falls short of dealing with services.