Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
if such rights do not exist). They argue, correspondingly, that plaintiffs’ strident warning that Local Law 15 would require attorneys to violate their ethical duties to clients — by forcing an attorney seeking to collect a time-barred debt to inform the debtor of the running of the statute of limitations, an affirmative defense to litigation — is misplaced. But this argument misses the point. Unlike the New York City Council, the federal government is not obligated to draft its statutes so as to comport with New York law. Cf. U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2 (establishing the supremacy of federal law). Rather, the federal government may — and does — regulate the conduct of attorneys acting as debt collectors. See Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 131 L.Ed.2d 395 (1995) . New York City Council, by contrast, may only
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the fdcpa applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activity even when that activity consists of litigation
B. holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt
C. holding that fdcpa applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activities
D. holding that back rent is debt under the fdcpa
E. holding that where the defendant obtained a nondefaulted debt under the mistaken belief that the debt was in default and where the defendants subsequent collection activities were based on that mistaken belief the defendant was a debt collector for purposes of the fdcpa
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.