Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
skepticism about the substantive validity of this monopoly lease claim based on maintenance of a single lease by an alleged monopolist.” National Souvenir Center, supra, 728 F.2d at 513. Indeed, we noted that Appellees’ sale of the Lynch figures to other wax museum franchisees seriously undercuts appellants’ arguments that ap-pellees relied on the lease as a mechanism to discourage replacement of the figures with those of competitors during the lease term, or that leasing rather than selling significantly affected the market for figures. Id. Despite its submission of evidence of additional leases (between appellees and other museums), appellant gives us no cause to question the appropriateness of our initial skepticism. Gatlinb Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968) . However, United Shoe is clearly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding ncaas television restrictions violated  1 of the sherman act
B. holding that uniteds lease provisions violated  4 of the sherman act
C. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act
D. holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act
E. holding ban violated the sherman act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.