With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a plaintiff may be able to establish constitutional injury in fact by pleading violation of a right conferred by statute, so long as she can allege that the injury she suffered was specific to her, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197. Here, Plaintiffs’ primary asserted injury is violation of their statutory right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344. As discussed more fully below, § 3344 prohibits the nonconsensual use of another’s name, voice, signature, photo graph, or likeness for advertising, selling, or soliciting purposes, and creates a cause of action for persons injured by such actions. Cal. Civ.Code § 3344. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant used their names, photographs, likenesses, and identities to sell advertisements for 5, 711-13 (N.D.Cal.2011) (Ware, C.J.) (<HOLDING>); cf. Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d

A: holding that the plaintiffs state commonlaw tort claims were preempted by the national motor vehicle safety act 15 usc 1381 et seq
B: holding that prejudgment interest ordinarily should be awarded on damages pursuant to claims under the copyright act of 1909 17 usc  1 et seq 1976 ed superceded by the copyright act of 1976 17 usc  101 et seq
C: holding that plaintiffs had constitutional standing where they alleged violation of their rights under the wiretap act 18 usc  2510 et seq even though dismissal was warranted for failure to state a claim for relief thereunder
D: holding that denial of vsf benefits to disabled retirees does not violate the ada the rehabilitation act 29 usc  791 et seq or the age discrimination in employment act of 1967 29 usc  621 et seq and that plaintiffs due process and first amendment claims were frivolous
C.