With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The alleged express warranty includes provisions on Generic Manufacturers’ la bel. As discussed above, the duty of sameness required Generic Manufacturers to conform their labeling to that of the brand-name drugs. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. at 2577-78. Therefore, federal law prohibited Generic Manufacturers from modifying any “express warranty” contained in the labeling. In Smith, this Court rejected a similar argument regarding warranty claims, finding them preempted. Smith v. Wyeth, 657 F.3d 420, 423 (6th Cir.2011) (finding all claims preempted, including plaintiffs’ warranty claims in their supplemental brief). Plaintiffs cite three cases outside the prescription drug context in support of their argument, Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (<HOLDING>), Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431,

A: holding that the labeling act did not preempt negligent and wanton design and manufacture claims against cigarette manufacturer
B: holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim
C: holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer
D: holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions
D.