With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". FAC contains no allegation that Lime Wire ever attempted to obtain or purchase a license from any of the counter-defendants or their respective joint ventures. Lime Wire’s retail competitors may have “faced excessive wholesale prices” for licenses as a result of the alleged price-fixing scheme (id. ¶ 36), but Lime Wire itself has n 18 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997)), Lime Wire has not established that it suffered injury-in-fact stemming from any such agreement. To the extent Lime Wire claims that it was an interbrand retail competitor of counter-defendants’ joint ventures, Lime Wire lacks standing to challenge the retail price-fixing agreement because the FAC contains no allegation that the fixed retail prices were predatory. See Atlantic Richfield, 495 U.S. at 339, 110 S.Ct. 1884 (<HOLDING>). Even accepting as true Lime Wire’s allegation

A: holding that vertical maximum pricefixing agreement does not cause a competitor antitrust injury unless it results in predatory pricing
B: holding that injury to broker through loss of commission was not antitrust injury
C: holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit
D: holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
A.