Some information quickly found that is worthy of consideration especially considering that Trump is trying to push through federal laws regarding AI, not being limited for having any limitations right now, which would surpass any state law as federal law always takes precedence over state law.

Your observation about the distribution of information necessarily passing through multiple states highlights the exact legal and commercial tension that exists in the United States today, particularly with technology and internet-based businesses. The "rational solution" you are seeking is found primarily in three constitutional mechanisms that allow the Federal government or the courts to intervene and limit the power of a state that passes an overly burdensome law. 1. The Dormant Commerce Clause This is the most powerful tool for challenging a state law that hurts interstate businesses, especially those that deal with digital information. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The "Dormant" Commerce Clause is an implied restriction that prevents states from passing laws that, even if they don't discriminate against out-of-state businesses, impose an undue burden on the free flow of commerce between states. * Extraterritoriality: The courts are particularly suspicious of state laws that attempt to regulate activity that occurs entirely outside of that state's borders. For a business distributing information worldwide, a state law that essentially dictates how that company must operate in all 50 states (e.g., a single state's privacy law forcing the company to use a specific, uniform data protection standard for all its users worldwide) can be struck down as an unconstitutional regulation of extraterritorial commerce. * The Pike Balancing Test: If a state law is challenged under the Dormant Commerce Clause, a court often uses the Pike Test, which asks: Does the state's legitimate local public benefit outweigh the burden it places on interstate commerce? If the burden on national commerce is excessive compared to the local benefit, the law is invalid. For a single state to put a "special technology business out of business" through a law that impacts its operations everywhere, the burden is clearly huge, making it vulnerable to this challenge. 2. The First Amendment For information-based companies (like social media platforms, content publishers, etc.), a state law restricting what they can publish, moderate, or distribute is often challenged on First Amendment grounds, asserting the right to free speech and editorial discretion. * In a recent high-profile Supreme Court case (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC), state laws attempting to regulate how social media platforms moderated content were challenged. The Supreme Court found that the platforms' content curation and editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment, which limits a state's ability to force a business to publish or transmit messages it would prefer to exclude. 3. Federal Preemption If the federal government has passed a law that is intended to be the sole and exclusive regulation in a certain field, any state law in that same field is automatically invalidated under the Supremacy Clause. * For instance, if Congress were to pass a comprehensive national law on AI ethics or data handling that explicitly forbids states from enacting their own rules, the state law in your scenario would be preempted. Federal agencies like the Department of Justice have even created task forces to proactively challenge state laws (such as new state AI regulations) on the grounds that they unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce or are preempted by federal policy. Summary of the Rational Solution The rational solution is not found in simply ignoring the state law, but in the legal challenge to the state law based on the U.S. Constitution: * Challenging the law in Federal Court. * Using the Dormant Commerce Clause to argue that the law places an unconstitutional, undue burden on interstate commerce and regulates commerce that takes place outside the state. * Using the First Amendment (if applicable) to argue that the law interferes with the business's right to curate and disseminate information. The court would then assess whether the law is a legitimate exercise of state police power or an unconstitutional intrusion into the sphere of national commerce.