> A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states.
Interstate commerce is generally subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state governments, except that state laws which discriminate against out-of-state trade are presumptively illegal, state law cannot negate federal law, and federal law can explicitly (and sometimes implicitly) forbid state regulation of the same conduct. It is not the case that the mere fact that it involves interstate commerce automatically, without federal law addressing the subject, precludes state regulation.
OTOH, to the extent that the elements of site design likely to be challenged under this are very closely related to the functions protected by Section 230, which does include a preemption clause, even if this is otherwise Constitutional applying it is going to often be tricky in practice.
Interstate commerce is generally subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state governments, except that state laws which discriminate against out-of-state trade are presumptively illegal, state law cannot negate federal law, and federal law can explicitly (and sometimes implicitly) forbid state regulation of the same conduct. It is not the case that the mere fact that it involves interstate commerce automatically, without federal law addressing the subject, precludes state regulation.
OTOH, to the extent that the elements of site design likely to be challenged under this are very closely related to the functions protected by Section 230, which does include a preemption clause, even if this is otherwise Constitutional applying it is going to often be tricky in practice.