With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or that any Arizona resident other than the plaintiff had ever visited the site); id. (citing Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, 29 (2d Cir.1997), as holding that New York’s long-arm statute did not extend to the operator of a Missouri jazz club whose website merely had a hyperlink to a New York club of the same name); id. (quoting Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 337 (5th Cir.1999), as declining to find jurisdiction where the defendant's website was accessible to forum residents, but where “[tjhere was no evidence that [the defendant] conducted business over the Internet by engaging in business transactions with forum residents or by entering into contracts over the Internet”); see also Soma Med. Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d 1292, 1297 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l

A: holding that the defendant maintained a passive website and was therefore not subject to general jurisdiction
B: holding that an interactive website allowing clients to bank online was insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a foreign bank
C: holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction
D: holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction
C.