If the service is advertized to people outside the state, and people from outside states cross state lines to do so I would say so.
I don't believe that was the purpose of the commerce clause. I already provided a link to Federalist #45, in which the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, explains his view of the division of powers. A relevant quotation:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
That does not sound to me like he envisioned a federal regulatory state. Furthermore, he wrote this:
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Extending the commerce clause to provide authority for a federal ban on partial birth abortions, homegrown cannabis plants, homegrown machine guns, guns carried too near to schools, or even toads found only in California seems to me to create a federal government with powers that are far from "few and defined." Now, it is true that Chief Justice Roberts did find that a toad found only in California has no significant relationship to interstate commerce, but the rest of those examples are the real law of the land today, and the fact that we even had a court case to decide whether indigenous California toads affect interstate commerce seems pretty ridiculous to me.