Even if it was true in all 50 states, we could claim it is true in only a subset of those 50 states since a set containing all 50 states is a subset of itself. Had the claim been a proper subset instead, this wouldn't have been the case.

And even if it was true in all 50 states and all smaller governments therein, one could claim it as false because some businesses have to run under franchise rules that disallow the practice. I think such a sentence should be interpreted as talking about the general case of what is acceptable (acceptable in that people do not hold nearly an equivalent level of protest at the federal law on tipping and on organizations that follow it or state level varieties that allow a similar practice as they do for DoorDash's practice).