I see your point, but smacking down a state for having different principles is a violation of the principles of federalism. If federalism means anything, it includes the freedom for a state to make its own experiments in democracy as long as they don't cross enumerated federal powers.
If this bill treats people from different states differently then it is vulnerable to the commerce clause, but that isn't clearly the case.
California regulation has affected people outside of the state since long before the internet. If that's enough to toss out federalist principles and to handcuff a state beyond constitutional justification, then federalism is quite weak.
Your argument seems to be that federalism should be ignored here in order to protect the integrity of federalism. I'm not understanding how that works.
BTW, I very much disagree with California's direction here. I moved out of the state after growing up and living there for 37 years because of this kind of policy making. But as a federalist I value their independence more than their correctness.
Quite the opposite. This is exactly the definition of federalism.
Here the key question regarding interstate commerce should be about who must comply with this law (if it becomes law). California wants it to be "businesses" with a "nexus" in California, but that seems like rather expansive. But finding a more limited way to specify "California businesses" that isn't also de-fanged is very difficult in today's world.
Still, now, suppose that Texas or Florida had conflicting laws? Then what?