“Courts have held that when a defendant chooses to manufacture one product for a nationwide market, rather than target its products to comply with state laws, defendant’s choice does not implicate the commerce clause.” Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946, 961 (N.D.Cal.2006); see id. (“[E]ven if [defendant] chooses to change its entire website in order to comply with California law, this does not mean that California is regulating out-of-state conduct.”). The Ninth Circuit has recently held that “regulation with reference to local harms” does not constitute extraterritorial regulation under the Commerce Clause merely because that regulation creates incentives for businesses to alter out-of-state activity. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, 730 F.3d at 1101-06 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, § 632.7 regulates only calls with
holding that california fuel standards taking into account lifecycle emissions did not control conduct wholly outside the state despite arguments that the standards forced plaintiffs to conform outofstate conduct to california law holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that california law permitted the application of a homestead exemption to property located outside the state holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired