With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985), which applied the Central Hudson test, undermining this Court’s conclusion not to apply Central Hudson at all. Zauderer upheld the requirement that an attorney, who choose to advertise, include certain disclosures in that advertising. Id. at 650-52. Zauderer reasoned that because the government is free to regulate commercial speech to prevent it from being false, deceptive or misleading, id. at 638, 105 S.Ct. 2265, it can compel speech to ensure those ends as well, id. at 652, 105 S.Ct. 2265. Because the rationale for regulation there, to prevent false and misleading commercial speech, does not apply to the compelled funding of commercial speech here, Zauderer is inapplicable to this case. See also United Foods 533 U.S. at 416, 121 S.Ct. at 2341 (<HOLDING>). E. Washington Constitution The Defendants

A: holding that zauderer was inapposite because there was no suggestion that the mandatory assessments were necessary to prevent voluntary advertising from being misleading
B: holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading
C: holding that there was no preemption where it was not shown that resort to an interpretation of the labor contract itself is necessary to define the state right being asserted
D: holding that the shape of a product was not an advertising idea because there was no allegation in the complaint that the design itself was a trademark or was intended to distinguish the product from others that might enter the market citation omitted
A.