This ruling is correct, and good.

> If a company develops a web-based business for the purpose of conducting online transactions in all 50 States, it should not be surprised that it may be sued in any State for unlawful transactions that may occur within that State.

Obviously. But the author calls this "chilling". Without this, companies could circumvent state laws, to conduct actions that are illegal in that state within that state, simply by headquartering or hosting in another. That would be absurd.

It would create a race-to-the-bottom of consumer rights, where states wanting business tax revenue are incentivized to make their states surveillance/ data harvesting/ consumer exploitation havens, whose businesses could then operate across all other states freely.