Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
impossible to ascertain the precise economic consequences of intangible harms, such as damage to reputation and loss of goodwill, caused by such violations. Abbott Laboratories, 971 F.2d at 16. The Tenth Circuit has limited this presumption to the following circumstances: In any event, the presumption is properly limited to circumstances in which injury would indeed likely flow from the defendant’s objectionable statements, i.e., when the defendant has explicitly compared its product to the plaintiffs or the plaintiff is an obvious competitor with respect to the misrepresented product. See Ortho, 32 F.3d at 694; Porous, 110 F.3d at 1335. Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 211 F.3d 515, 522 (10th Cir.2000); See Western Chemical Pumps, Inc. v. Superior Mfg., Inc., 989 F.Supp. 1112, 1130 (D.Kan.1997)  Here, defendant’s # 1 burst does not refer
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury
B. holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need
C. holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery
D. holding that plaintiffs infringement claim against defendants laterdeveloped product would be barred by laches and estoppel found applicable to earlier product if subsequent product is equivalent to earlier one under doctrine of equivalents
E. holding that irreparable harm may be presumed if the challenged advertisement directly but falsely proclaims the superiority of defendants product over plaintiffs product
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.