With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 562, 573, 97 S.Ct. 2849, 53 L.Ed.2d 965 (1977) (explaining that the State’s interest in providing a right of publicity is “closely analogous to the goals of patent and copyright law, focusing on the right of the individual to reap the reward of his endeavors and having little to do with protecting feelings or reputation”). Amazon responds that even if the right of publicity protects a type of intellectual property right, Congress did not intend for § 230(e)(2) to apply to publicity rights. First, Amazon argues that Congress did not intend by the CDA to protect state-law claims. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3) (“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”); but see Perfect 10, 340 F.Supp.2d at 1107-09 (<HOLDING>). Second, Amazon argues that Almeida’s right of

A: holding that californias liquor pricefixing statute violated federal antitrust law
B: holding that  230e2 applies to californias wrongful use of registered mark law cal bus  profcode  14335 and californias right of publicity law cal civcode  3344
C: holding that based on  230e2 the cda does not apply to californias statutory and common law right of publicity claims
D: holding that supervisors may not be sued individually under californias fair employment and housing act and stating that this holding also applies to common law actions for wrongful discharge
B.