Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
public necessarily means that they did learn about the defect.” (Dkt. No. 95 at 20.) In the SAC, Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the prerelease tests that they believe Defendant should have performed remain speculative. See, e.g., Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1147 (“The allegation that HP, as the manufacturer, had ‘access to the aggregate information and data regarding the risk of overheating’ is speculative and does not suggest how any tests or information could have alerted HP to the defect.”); Tietsworth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 5:09-CV-00288 JFHRL, 2009 WL 3320486, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 13, 2009) (finding conclusory the allegation that defendants were in a “superior position to know the truth about the [product]”); Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 964, 974 (N.D.Cal.2008) ; cf. Falk v. Gen. Motors Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
B. holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect
C. holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect
D. holding that an unspecified number of complaints posted on the defendants website was insufficient to show that the defendant had knowledge of an alleged defect
E. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.