With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argued that Ford lacked prudential standing in part because he failed to provide adequate evidence of causation. Despite this repeated challenge, Ford has not provided evidence demonstrating that he has suffered even a small loss as a result of defendants' advertising. He therefore has failed to meet his burden to "set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts” validating his right to standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citations omitted). 2 ding that Article III standing for a Lanham Act false advertising claim is lacking where the plaintiff's injuries cannot be traced to the defendants’ challenged advertisements "but are rather the result of an independent cause”). 5 . See Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1268 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge, Specially

A: holding that a plaintiff cannot serve as a class representative if she lacks standing to advance the classs claim
B: holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class
C: holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class
D: holding that named plaintiff who did not have a viable claim against defendant could not serve as a class representative and vacating class certification accordingly
A.