Teacher:In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: the allegations do not support an inference that any of the named plaintiffs have been personally injured such as to provide them with the causes of action asserted in Counts III and IV under the laws of California, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont, plaintiffs lack standing to bring those claims, and the claims asserted in Counts III and IV as to those jurisdictions will be dismissed. B. Antitrust injury under state antitrust claims States may, but need not, follow the rule of Illinois Brick in enforcing their own state antitrust laws. California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 105-06, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Several states expressly do not adhere to the
Holding statements: (A) holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim (B) holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law (C) recognizing that rationales behind illinois brick might not be apply in all cases but standing by illinois brick regardless (D) holding that illinois brick did not preempt state laws that permit suits by plaintiffs with passedon injuries (E) holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims
Student:
holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim