With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiffs standing to bring a claim under the CLRA for any misrepresentations she relied upon relating to the Osteo Bi-Flex Regular Strength product that she purchased. It is less clear whether Plaintiff has standing to bring claims under the UCL and the CLRA as to the Osteo Bi-Flex products that she did not purchase and the advertising she did not view. The court in Bayer Corp. provided, in dicta, that a plaintiff “cannot expand the scope of his claims to include a product he did not purchase or advertisements relating to a product that he did not rely upon.” Bayer Corp., 2010 WL 476688, at *5. Some district courts in the Ninth Circuit have followed this view. See, e.g., Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-01044-JSW, 2011 WL 159380, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 475 Fed.Appx. 113, No. 11-15263, 2012

A: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own
B: holding california ucl fal and clra claims depend on the common question of whether the labels at issue are unlawful unfair deceptive or misleading to reasonable consumers
C: holding that plaintiff has standing to bring ucl and clra claims for the drumstick ice cream products purchased but dismissing plaintiffs claims for the dibs ice cream product which plaintiff never alleged he purchased or suffered a loss
D: holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged injury under the ucl fal and clra by asserting that the product they received was worth less than what they paid for it owing to defendants misleading labels
C.