Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
standing argument is that (1) under the current financial standards certain suppliers would be ruled ineligible for the DME Bidding Process, but (2) proper notice-and-comment rulemaking would have altered the standards used by the Secretary, and (3) under the new financial standards those suppliers would be found eligible. Similarly, the argument concerning harm to beneficiaries is that (1) under the current financial standards the Medicare beneficiary would obtain a rate and quality of care that (2) would be altered by new financial standards (whatever they might be) and (3) would lead to higher costs or lower-quality services. These highly attenuated scenarios are insufficient to confer Article I II standing. See Jacobrown v. United States, 764 F.Supp.2d 221, 227 (D.D.C.2011)  (quoting Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute
B. holding that district court did not have jurisdiction over any claims that could not exist independently of a contract
C. holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
D. holding that in order to establish standing the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling must not be too speculative
E. holding that standing does not exist where the court would have to accept a number of very speculative inferences and assumptions in any endeavor to connect the alleged injury with the challenged conduct 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.