Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Senator Fritz Hollings, the sponsor of the TCPA, stated that “[e]omputerized calls are the scourge of modern civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out of the wall.” Mims, 132 S.Ct. at 752. Initially, the Court notes that several district courts, including district courts within the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, have held that a plaintiff demonstrates a violation of privacy interests, and therefore an injury-in-fact, after receiving automated calls. See, e.g., Schumacher v. Credit Prot. Ass’n, No. 4:13-CV-164, 2015 WL 5786139 (S.D.Ind. Sept. 30, 2015) ; Ikuseghan v. Multicare Health Sys., No.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff had standing because the defendant violated her privacy by making unsolicited automated calls to her cell phone
B. holding over
C. holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court
D. holding that the plaintiff had constitutional standing because he received over fifty calls over three months from an automated caller
E. holding that directors who sat on over fifteen boards and received over 50000 in compensation were not interested
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.