Lawyers and their doublespeak

As someone who has worked with computers and programming for a while (or even as a human in general), things like unfinished if-statements really bother me. That is, saying "if..." without a resulting "then..." Such was the case in a statement by Joystiq's resident lawyer Mark Methenitis. Talking about legal restrictions on prizes in Xbox's new 1 vs. 100 game show, he said:

Taking Iowa as an example, their laws are such that many scholars believe participation in a game for any property of value would be illegal gambling. There's also a provision that if, for a fee, anything of value is delivered, and given that this is limited to Xbox Live Gold members, it may be the wording of the statute that leads them to believe the paid membership plus the game may be problematic.

While the intent of this statement does make sense, the actual wording of it does not, though it is somewhat "legalese". Putting it in terms familiar to someone like me, the thrust of the argument would be something like this:
A: assume 1 vs. 100 only open to Xbox Live Gold members
B: assume Gold membership costs money (i.e. "has a value" as Methenitis puts it)

Thus, playing 1 vs. 100 has a value.

This argument is all well and good, but the problem arises when he goes into describing the additional provision. "If, for a fee, anything of value is delivered," what happens? He never describes the outcome. The rest of the statement is just a parenthetical phrase telling how it may be interpreted that Xbox Live membership is like paying a fee.

Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/17/1-vs-100-prizes-unavailable-in-certain-states-and-quebec/