Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
private party. The court considered whether that new requirement applied only to the named plaintiff or also to all absent class members. Id., 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d at 25. The court concluded, based on the language of the initiative, that only the named plaintiff needed to show such an injury in fact. Id. Individuals could remain part of the class even if they had suffered no injury in fact. Id., 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559, 207 P.3d at 35. That case, however, was in state court and did not address federal courts’ standing requirements. Before the enactment of Proposition 64, uninjured plaintiffs could bring UCL claims in state court, but not federal court. See, e.g., Seibels Bruce Group, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. C-99-0593 MHP, 1999 WL 760527 at *6 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 21, 1999) ; Boyle v. MTV Networks, Inc., 766 F.Supp. 809,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
B. holding that plaintiff did not have standing to assert ucl claim in federal court because it did not establish a distinct and palpable injury
C. holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party
D. holding that a plaintiff may not assert claims based on statements she did not view
E. holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.