That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. Maybe SCOTUS will use the cockamamie "but the market is nationwide so it still affects it" excuse but normally...
Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce:
"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..."
> That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce.
A company commercially gathering data that is not exclusively limited to data on in-state activities of in-state residents from (transitively) exclusively in-state sources, and selling it, is engaging in interstate commerce.
"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..."
Roscoe lost.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn