Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statutes] and 625 ILCS 5/2 — 123(h) [section 2 — 123(h) of the Illinois Vehicle Code]). Now saying that they do “not directly rely on the [federal statutes],” Claimants contend that count III asserts “an implied statutory tort based on the federal statutes and State nondisclosure policy.” Petition for Rehearing, paragraph 20, at 7. Raising an issue of first impression in this Court, Claimants ask us to recognize an implied statutory tort— i.e., a private civil action implied from a statute that does not expressly create a private cause of action — emanating from a mix of federal and state statutes. Claimants invoke the “5-factor” standard for implied statutory torts established in Sawyer Realty Group, Inc. v. Jarvis Corp. (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 378, 432 N.E.2d 849, 59 Ill. Dec. 905 . We must reject this creative but wildly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act
B. recognizing implied private action under the plat act rejecting implied private action under the national flood insurance act of 1968
C. recognizing implied private action for violation of the real estate brokers and salesmen license act
D. holding that a real estate brokers allegations of an oral contract with prospective purchasers stated a cause of action
E. holding that the real estate brokers law which provided for the investigation of the acts of real estate brokers and the suspension or revocation of their licenses for specified acts is penal and must be strictly construed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.