Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
even if dispute would be futile, because the FDCPA requires that notice be given, that the debtor be informed of his or her rights to dispute and obtain validation of the debt, and a proper notice of dispute triggers the debt collector’s obligation to obtain and provide the debtor with validation, including a copy of a judgment, I cannot say that plaintiff has failed to state a claim. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. 4 . Circuits are split on whether applying the unsophisticated consumer standard to collection notices and letters under the FDCPA is a matter of law for judges to decide or a question of fact better left to juries. Compare Johnson v. Revenue Mgmt. Corp., 169 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir.1999); Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC, 518 F.3d 433, 440-41 (6th Cir.2008)  with Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact
B. holding that estoppel was a question of fact
C. holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact
D. holding violation of cpr is a question of law not fact
E. holding it is a question of fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.