Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
after surveying California court decisions, that “courts generally presume that the fourth element of the applicable test has been established if there is sufficient evidence to prove the first three elements.” Del Amo v. Baccash, No. CV 07-663-PSG, 2008 WL 4414514, at *6 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 16, 2008) (presuming that injury was satisfied for purposes of a § 3344 claim seeking only minimum statutory damages, where plaintiff established use of non-celebrity models’ identity, appropriation of their name or likeness to defendant’s advantage, and lack of consent). Indeed, in cases involving celebrity plaintiffs, the mere allegation that the plaintiff was not compensated has been deemed sufficient to satisfy the injury prong. See, e.g., Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078, 1090 (2002) ; Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the board cannot be liable for punitive damages citations omitted
B. holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages
C. holding that a plaintiff could recover actual damages under the tcpa for loss of credit if the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of the amount damages requested
D. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable
E. holding that actor who was featured on the cover of an adult magazine without his consent could assert injury because the measure of damages available for misappropriation claims includes the economic value of the use of an individuals name and likeness and sjection 3344 specifically provides that a plaintiff may recover any profits from the unauthorized use in addition to actual damages or the 750 minimum statutory damage amount and punitive damages internal citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.