With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". .practice’ sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 349.”); accord, Saterson v. Planet Ins. Co., No. 93-CV-6885, 1994 WL 689084, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1994). The case law governing a lawsuit under section 349, however, makes clear (as Riordan I suggests) that, to prevail under that provision, a plaintiff must adduce evidence that the defendant’s conduct is injurious to “the public at large.” See Rior-dan I, 756 F.Supp. at 739 (denying the motion to dismiss submitted by the insurance-company defendant where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant promulgated a policy regarding claim settlement that was “designed to deceive certain categories of policyholders”); see also Exxonmo-bil Inter-Am., Inc. v. Advanced Info. Eng’g Servs., Inc., 328 F.Supp.2d 443, 447 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>); N.Y. Univ. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308,

A: holding that to state a claim under section 349 a plaintiff must allege 1 a deceptive consumeroriented act or practice which is misleading in a material respect and 2 injury resulting from such an act citing andre strishak  assocs pc v hewlett packard co 300 ad2d 608 609 752 nys2d 400 2d dept 2002
B: holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading
C: holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation 
D: holding that treble damages are appropriate under ohio law when the seller engages in an unconscionable practice or deceptive act
A.