With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ribas v. Clark, 88 Cal.3d 355, 362, 212 Cal.Rptr. 143, 696 P.2d 637 (1985); see also Bales v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc., No. 13-cv-1894 JM(KSC), 2013 WL 6244529, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170443, at *11 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying a motion to dismiss on public utility exception grounds where the defendant could not proffer that its recording equipment was furnished and used pursuant to a published tariff). Rather, Omni argues that because the PUC once regulated monitoring and recording of the kind at issue here, § 632.7 should be read as if it never applied to service monitoring. Most courts considering § 632.7 or the identical exception in § 632(e), however, have rejected this argument. See, e.g., Right v. CashCall, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1391, 133 Cal. Rptr.3d 450 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Bales, 2013 WL 6244529, at *4, 2013 U.S.

A: holding that  632 contains no exceptions applicable when a business monitors a telephone conversa tion even if the monitoring is for a legitimate business purpose
B: holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose
C: holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business
D: holding that monitoring telephone calls is in the ordinary course of business where the employer has reason to suspect an employee of disclosing confidential information to business competitor
A.