[hga]

Ummm, what's the legal theory that allows a US state to regulate out of state commerce like this?

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be a web company based in Massachusetts and this might have more than a small effect on the Boston area's attractiveness to many startups.

[andrewf]

--article snip-- I could wax eloquently on about the potential battle of states’ rights versus federal oversight and the potential for a Supreme Court challenge based on the Commerce Clause, but, this is an article for geeks, so I won’t go there. Instead, I’ll simply say once again: yikes. --snip--

It seems silly to state legalities are out of scope when you're talking about a law, even if (or, especially if!) you're not writing for lawyers.

[tzs]

The big thing with regulation of commerce is that a state can't do it in a way that favors in-state merchants over out-of-state merchants. This law appears to treat in-state and out-of-state merchants equally, so might be OK as for as regulation of interstate commerce law is concerned. (And it might not--this is a tricky area of law).

[dangrossman]

It would be the US Constitution, where it gives all rights that are not explicitly enumerated to the states.

[tomjen3]

True, but the commerce clause is enumerated in the constitution.

[ggchappell]

"... or to the people." Let's not forget that. (Not that it's terribly relevant to your point.)