Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
al., Dobbs’ Law of Torts § 673 (2d ed. 2016) (noting that the “strength of the ‘notice’ to the plaintiff that investigation may be needed” is dependent on a number of factors including “the obscurity or obviousness of the contradiction in the defendant’s statements” and the “relationship of the parties”). Other courts that have considered the issue have concluded that it is justifiable for state unemployment agencies to rely on “weekly certifications to determine an applicant’s eligibility for benefits over specific periods of time.” See Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. v. Yuppa (In re Yuppa), 2013 WL 4854479 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio June 12, 2013) (unpublished opinion) (citing State of Colorado ex rel. Central Collection Serv. v. O’Brien (In re O’Brien), 110 B.R. 27, 32-33 (Bankr.D.Colo.1990) . Discussing the Colorado unemployment system,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement
B. holding that the state police is a state agency
C. holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance
D. holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
E. holding in a decision predating field v mans that the state unemployment agency satisfied a reasonable reliance standard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.