With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". advertising regarding the digestive benefits of “Align,” a daily food supplement. Plaintiff alleged that although Procter & Gamble promoted the “clinically proven” digestive benefits of “Align,” in fact, there was no clinical data showing that Align improved digestion. The Rikos court held that the plaintiff had alleged “injury in fact” in the form of economic injury: “Plaintiff purchased Align in reliance on P & G’s claims that the product provides defined health benefits, when these advertisements were allegedly false and deceptive.... Accordingly, Plaintiff maintains that [his] purchase of the product is the economic harm, because it was not provided as advertised.” Id. at 530, at *5. See also In re Celexa and Lexapro Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 751 F.Supp.2d 277 (D.Mass.2010) (<HOLDING>). Defendants’ reliance on “no-injury” products

A: holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged injuryinfact based on impact to sites that the plaintiff had visited in the past and planned to revisit each year in the future
B: holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident
C: holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged injuryinfact where he alleged that the product an antidepression drug was unsatisfactory because it was inappropriate and not efficacious for his son
D: holding that police chiefs son who alleged that he was denied an interview for a position because his father had criticized the local officials did not have standing to assert the first amendment rights of his father
C.