Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
practices. We have previously rejected this precise argument in FTC v. Dixie Finance Co., 695 F.2d 926, 930 (5th Cir.1983), albeit under the second prong of McCarran Act preemption test set forth in Cochran, 606 F.2d at 464. The analysis set forth in Dixie Finance is equally applicable in this case, and for the sake of brevity, we will not repeat it. 7 . The First, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits hold that if a practice is illegal under both state and federal law but federal law provides for a stronger remedy, the McCarran Act does not preempt the federal law. See Villafane-Neriz v. FDIC, 75 F.3d 727, 735-36 (1st Cir.1996) (Federal Deposit Insurance Act); Merchants Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Frank B. Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1492 (9th Cir.1995) (RICO); NAACP, 978 F.2d at 295-97 ; Mackey v. Nationwide Ins. Cos., 724 F.2d 419,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims
B. holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim
C. recognizing provisions of the fair housing act that forbid false statements that housing is unavailable to a person because of his race
D. holding that mccarran act did not preempt application of fair housing act against redlining by insurance companies where state law outlawed the practice but provided no private remedy
E. holding that the brooke amendment to the housing act provided a cause of action under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.