and spell it out better.

Let's just table mom and pop's car wash for a second, and other similar establishments that make up a tiny fraction of our national economy.

The point about states imposing their will is about the vast majority of business in this country that is done across state lines, usually nationally if not internationally in the tech/app/internet economy. That is literally where 99% of the growth is, the direction the market moves more and more each year. There is a small, decreasing sector of our economy that is truly "local" (and even then, the way they communicate, take payment, take out loans, purchase goods and equipment, bank their money, etc. is not local). So a state like California comes along and passes something like CCPA, that means you have to give California residents X, Y, and Z protections if they do business with you and you take their information. Technically, that only applies to California, but that may well be a quarter of your business and your choices are either suppress that large a market or comply. So you invest millions of dollars in compliance infrastructure for the California law, which is far more protective than any other state's law. And since you did so (and since following the same standards gets you more than an A+ in every other states), that becomes your compliance system. You essentially treat it like a federal law, unless you want to have an entirely separate track for California than the rest of your business, or choose to wall off a state with nearly 1/5 of the nation's GDP. The same goes to NY's cyber laws. Or various other laws. and you know why these states are passing such sweeping and aggressive laws? Perception the federal government is asleep at the switch with REpublicans in power, so the states are taking the lead.

And that does impose the state's will on businesses unless, as noted, they want to exclude their biggest markets. Some do, but most who need access can't or they lose too much money to.

I'll save the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper stuff for another day. I generally find those conversations tedious, no offense. We don't live in the 1700s and all this academic "powers" stuff is silly in my view. Courts have been agreeing with me since the 1920's.