Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
solicitation. Even an unsophisticated consumer would understand that no call is placed unless the caller wishes to transmit a message, and the adjective “important” conveys no substantive information about that message. See Peters v. Gen. Serv. Bureau, Inc., 277 F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th Cir.2002) (applying an objective “unsophisticated consumer test” when determining whether a debt collector’s practices are deceptive or misleading in violation of the FDCPA). The Court concludes that the messages left by JCC on Zortman’s voice-mail do not constitute “communications” with a person other than the consumer. ■ The FDCPA recognizes that debt collection is a legitimate commercial activity. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e); Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 318-19 (8th Cir.2004) . The Act further recognizes that debt
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a claim for violation of the fair debt collection practices act is not a personal injury tort claim
B. holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt
C. recognizing that part of the purpose of the act is to prevent competitively disadvantaging debt collectors who do not engage in abusive practices
D. holding that debt collectors have no obligation to warn a consumer that her debt may increase over time
E. holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.