Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that prepare and administer standardized admissions tests such as the ACT, SAT, LSAT, and MCAT. 9 Section 99.33 provides in relevant part: (a)(1) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record only on the condition that the party to whom the information is disclosed will not disclose the information to any other party without the prior consent of the parent or eligible student. There are certain exceptions to this rule, but none that bear on the questions we must decide in this appeal. See, e.g., 34 C.F.R. § 99.31. 10 Many of the cases cited to us, or which our research uncovered, were based on the obsolete definition of "student" cited above or upon incomplete research. See Tarka v. Franklin, 891 F.2d 102 (5th Cir. 1989) ; Norwood v. Slammons, 788 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute was ambiguous because it provides no definition of the term violation and provides no specific direction as to the proper unit of prosecution
B. holding 20 usc  1232g provides no private right of action and employs an outdated definition of student
C. holding that no private right of action exists
D. holding that a private right of action exists
E. recognizing private right of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.