With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". position — which they have maintained throughout this case — with their new allegations that Defendant started receiving customer complaints related to the defect almost immediately after the first-generation motors hit the market. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has echoed doubt expressed by other courts “that customer complaints in and of themselves adequately support an inference that a manufacturer was aware of a defect, noting that complaints posted on a manufacturer’s webpage ‘merely establish the fact that some consumers were complaining’. By themselves they are insufficient to show that [the manufacturer] had knowledge [of the defect].” Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1147 (quoting Berenblat v. Apple, Inc., Nos. OS-4969 JF (PVT), 09-1649 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 1460297, at *9 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) (<HOLDING>)). Nevertheless, the court in Wilson conceded

A: holding that an unspecified number of complaints posted on the defendants website was insufficient to show that the defendant had knowledge of an alleged defect
B: holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect
C: holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this
D: holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect
A.