That was in California. Presumably, it's worded somewhat differently, and with different intent, elsewhere.
50 states, plus Federal laws, and all the other countries of the world and internal jurisdictions is how many possible variations? And before you say "Yeah, but they all mean mostly the same thing", remember it's lawyers we're dealing with, who will happily charge large sums of money arguing over misplaced punctuation and legislators who will happily take bribes from those same lawyers.
California was the example they chose to provide. From this, we can reasonably infer that Mozilla does not have a better example handy to illustrate what's wrong with legal definitions around selling user's data. If their best example is completely unconvincing, we should remain unconvinced.
Most people here are assuming that they mentioned that one specifically because it was one of those that Mozilla feels is too broad or difficult. It could be simply read as a random example, but I think that's quite a generous interpretation.
50 states, plus Federal laws, and all the other countries of the world and internal jurisdictions is how many possible variations? And before you say "Yeah, but they all mean mostly the same thing", remember it's lawyers we're dealing with, who will happily charge large sums of money arguing over misplaced punctuation and legislators who will happily take bribes from those same lawyers.