Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
price increase. 17 Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the regulation directly advanced the State’s interest, it did not dispute the District Court’s conclusion that the evidence suggested that, at most, a price advertising ban would have a marginal impact on overall alcohol consumption. Id., at 7-8; cf. Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Assn. v. Attorney General, 142 Mich. App., at 311, 370 N. W. 2d, at 336 (explaining that “any additional impact on the level of consumption attributable to the absence of price advertisements would be negligible”). 18 Outside the First Amendment context, we have refused to uphold alcohol advertising bans premised on similarly speculative assertions about their impact on consumption. See Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S., at 715-716 ; California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
B. holding that defendants communications sent into tennessee did not constitute purposeful availment because all were in response to communications initiated by the plaintiff
C. holding that easements using terms telephone telegraph and communications could properly be utilized for both internal communications and for thirdparty voice and data communications
D. recognizing state laws can be preempted by federal regulations as well as by federal legislation
E. holding ban preempted by federal communications commission regulations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.