With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". one thing for a private party to subject a principal to suit in a state’s courts. It is entirely another for the state or one of its municipalities to subject the principal— where the principal has not entered the state, but has instead merely entered into a contract formed entirely outside the state, under whose terms the principal’s performance also occurs entirely outside the state — to wholesale regulation. The former is permissible under the Due Process clause; the latter is impermissible under the Commerce Clause. Cf. Quill Corp., 504 U.S. at 305-313, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (discussing differing scope of and concerns animating the Due Process and Commerce Clauses). Even a de minimis regulation of extraterritorial commerce may violate the Commerce Clause. Cf. Abrams, 720 F.Supp. at 287-88 (<HOLDING>). But the regulatory requirements that New York

A: holding that notice requirement for malfunctioning vehicles innocuous as it is violated the commerce clause
B: holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause
C: holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause
D: holding  13981 constitutional under the commerce clause
A.