Creating more burden on the company side to keep up is the point -- feature, not a bug.

Who do you think lobbies against a federal-level pro-consumer bill? Hint: it's not the consumers.

The risk of a huge patchwork of not-completely-overlapping state level bills is one of the few checks consumers have against federal-level regulatory capture: if it's between a single set of federal-level rules vs. a patchwork of state-by-state rules, the profitable move becomes "okay, lets just let them have the federal-level rules."

The failure modes, of course, are:

- a completely-defanged federal rule which is worse than no rule (right-to-repair has continued to suffer this)

- further consolidation: if it's expensive to do business in multiple states, only the companies with the deepest pockets can continue to grow

Personally, though, my money is still on a growing patchwork of state laws will eventually necessitate a good-enough federal law.

The company only has burden if they want to maintain maximally sketchy but legal business practices in every possible locale. Doing the right thing is easy to implement.

The companies have lots of money. If they are having trouble following the laws, they can just direct the lobbying they were going to do at passing a universal consumer protection law.