With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". regulations”); Marotta, 214 So.3d at 599, 2017 WL 1282111, at *7 (“Thus, Congress clearly intended to ‘protect the national economy from the burden imposed by diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations,’ but did not clearly intend to extend broad immunity from common law liability to cigarette manufacturers.” (citation omitted)). Nothing in these six statutes reflects a federal objective to permit the sale or manufacture of cigarettes. As a result, we cannot say that Congress created a regulatory scheme that does not tolerate tort liability based on the dangerousness of all cigarettes manufactured by the tobacco companies but tolerates tort actions based on theories with a more limited scope. Cf. Altria Grp., 555 U.S. at 90, 129 S.Ct. 538 (<HOLDING>); Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.,

A: holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions
B: holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims
C: holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
D: holding that federal law did not preempt commonlaw fraud claim against cigarette manufacturer based on advertising of light cigarettes
D.