[andjd]

Legally, a company is subject to state laws of their state of incorporation (usually Delaware, for various reasons) _and_ their state of 'domicile', usually where they are headquartered. They are also subject to state laws in states where they operate.

So yes, in this situation, even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world.

Washington also isn't the only state passing this style of law. Putting up the systems and processes to comply with this law only for Washington-based positions would probably not be worth it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> even if MS were incorporated in Delaware, Washington state could pass laws that bind how the company acts anywhere in the world

This is not true [1]. It's especially untrue with respect to employment, a domain in which federal statute has a lot to say about who can regulate whom.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

[LargeWu]

You are misreading this. The Dormant Commerce Clause is relevant when talking about applying laws unequally for the purpose of protecting in-state commercial entities. For instance, if companies based out of state were subject to salary disclosure laws, but Washington based companies were not.

In this case, Dormant Commerce does not apply since the salary disclosure laws apply to any company operating in the state, regardless of where they're headquartered or incorporated. It applies equally to all.

[lozenge]

That's specific to state protectionism though. The law applies equally to jobs posted inside and outside the state so the Dormant Commerce Clause is not relevant.