With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fraud Act to policyholders across the country was impermissible because the Act, by its own terms, does not apply to consumer transactions involving nonresidents that occur outside Illinois. Moreover, in State Farm’s view, the certification of the nationwide class violated Illinois’ choice-of-law rules, as well as the full faith and credit clause, the due process clause, and the commerce clause of the federal constitution. A determination by this court that the Consumer Fraud Act does not apply, by its own terms, to the out-of-state transactions at issue in this case would render it unnecessary to address State Farm’s choice-of-law and constitutional arguments. Accordingly, we consider the scope of the Consumer Fraud Act first. See, e.g., Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 370 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Because the scope of the Act is a question of

A: holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction
B: holding that it is inappropriate to reach constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds
C: holding that it may be decided as a matter of law
D: holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds
D.