Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
FAC contains no allegation that Lime Wire ever attempted to obtain or purchase a license from any of the counter-defendants or their respective joint ventures. Lime Wire’s retail competitors may have “faced excessive wholesale prices” for licenses as a result of the alleged price-fixing scheme (id. ¶ 36), but Lime Wire itself has n 18 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997)), Lime Wire has not established that it suffered injury-in-fact stemming from any such agreement. To the extent Lime Wire claims that it was an interbrand retail competitor of counter-defendants’ joint ventures, Lime Wire lacks standing to challenge the retail price-fixing agreement because the FAC contains no allegation that the fixed retail prices were predatory. See Atlantic Richfield, 495 U.S. at 339, 110 S.Ct. 1884 . Even accepting as true Lime Wire’s allegation
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that vertical maximum pricefixing agreement does not cause a competitor antitrust injury unless it results in predatory pricing
B. holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
C. holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
D. holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury
E. holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.