Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(B) not impeded by diverse, nonuniform, and confusing labeling and advertising regulations.” Id. Congress sought to protect “commerce and the national economy” specifically from the effect of “diverse, nonuniform and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising” rules, id., not from more stringent regulation generally. See Altria Grp., 555 U.S. at 78-79, 129 S.Ct. 538 (explaining that the “Act’s pre-emption provisions promote its second purpose” by preventing States from “enforcing rules that are based on an assumption that the federal warnings are inadequate”); Reilly, 533 U.S. at 542-43, 121 S.Ct. 2404 (paraphrasing the second purpose as “to protect the national economy from interference due to diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and a F.3d 594, 600 (8th Cir. 2005) ; Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
B. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims
C. holding that the labeling act did not preempt negligent and wanton design and manufacture claims against cigarette manufacturer
D. holding that federal law did not preempt commonlaw fraud claim against cigarette manufacturer based on advertising of light cigarettes
E. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.