Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with cases cited by plaintiffs finding that, in light of the California legislature’s decision to create statutory damages for each violation of CIPA, no separate showing of injury aside from a violation of the privacy rights protected'by CIPA is required. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5423918, at *17-18, 2013 U.S. Dist.' LEXIS 172784, at *65-67 (N.D.Cal. Sep. 26, 2013) (rejecting an argument that § 632.7 requires independent injury aside from an invasion of statutory CIPA rights); Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 156, 167, 1 Cal. Rptr.3d 536 (2003) (“[A]n actionable violation of section 632 occurs the moment the surreptitious recording is made.”); Friddle v. Epstein, 16 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1661, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 85 (1993) . This finding is bolstered by the fact that §
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the occurrence of damages determines when a medical malpractice action accrues
B. holding that a cause of action accrues the moment the right to commence the action comes into existence
C. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
D. holding that a plaintiff may recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act provided the copyright damages serve a purpose other than compensation
E. holding that the right to recover statutory damages accrues at the moment the privacy act was violated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.