This is a very detailed response! I appreciate your attention detail, but I did want to address initial comment reading my comment as proposing GDPR as legal p

This is a very detailed response! I appreciate your attention detail, but I did want to address initial comment reading my comment as proposing GDPR as legal precedence. I never intended to forward the notion that the GDPR would serve as precedence. Indeed in a judicial context "precedence" has a very specific meaning and a piece of legislature from an international body of government would not be considered legal precedence in a U.S. court. I chose the phrasing "guide court opinion" carefully to specifically avoid confusion with the legal meaning of the term. I agree with your analysis of SD v. Wayfair in that this is not likely a piece of legislation that would make it to the Supreme Court on interstate commerce grounds (at least in a post-Quill world). But if it did I would speculate the argument would center around the need for online firms to alter their behavior in other States as a result of the California law. To which I made the leap to suggest that the GDPR, as a current event, and it's affect on altering firms behavior even outside of the EU would be something that would likely be referenced in a Court opinion. Although, if you wanted to find an example limited to the US, you could also refer to the current status of EPA car emission regulations to demonstrate a similar single state regulation altering firm behavior across state lines without running afoul of interstate commerce. But at the end of the day you and I are in agreement, this would not have much of an interstate commerce leg to stand on. P.S. For those interested in the South Dakota vs. Wayfair opinion here is a link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf I found it interesting like /u/briandear and it is especially relevant for the tech sector.