With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contact‘Doron Precision and Metropolis. The court agrees with CEC. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how Showtime could have been damaged by any alleged unfair or deceptive conduct in connection with its failure to have been awarded Sim 3. By its own admission, Showtime was winding up operations in September 2010 and would be dissolved by year-end. It was not accepting new business. (Doc. 27-2 at 30.) As such, it could not have accepted a purchase order for Sim 3, , Moreover, Plaintiffs have offered- no evidence to suggest that CEC’s statement offering Showtime a purchase order for Sim 3 was false when it was made; instead, it appears that CEC simply changed its mind about this purchase order when it learned of Showtime’s dissolution. Smith, 604 F.Supp. at 529-31 (<HOLDING>). Further, there is no evidence that CEC

A: holding that a promissory statement of future intent which does not come to fruition is not an unfair or deceptive practice
B: holding that 5000 civil fine assessable for unfair or deceptive bill collection practice does not render proceedings criminal prosecutions as those found guilty will not suffer severe collateral consequences such as curtailment of future economic opportunities or substantial social opprobrium
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 expressions of belief or opinion regarding the future of plaintiffs and defendants respective businesses and promissory statements of future intent do not violate the udtpa
A.