With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 548, 973 P.2d 527 (1999). The court reasoned that “to interpret the words ‘each violation’ to authorize a $2,500 sanction for each and every failure \.. would result in an unreasonable or oppressive statutory penalty,” while on the other hand, “to take all violations constituting evidence of a business practice in violation of a particular rule or regulation and count them as only one violation would be equally unreasonable.” Id. at 534-35, 206 Cal.Rptr. 164 (citing Hale, 22 Cal.3d at 399, 149 CaLRptr. 375, 584 P.2d 512). Therefore, the court concluded, a trial court should use a circumstances-based analysis to determine what penalties were justified based on the defendants’ conduct. Id.; see also Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 536-37, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 (1997) (<HOLDING>). We further note that when a penalty scheme

A: holding that a court cannot impose procedural re quirements on an agency beyond the minimum requirements imposed by statute
B: holding that though we do not have exclusive jurisdiction over unfair competition claims our own circuit law nonetheless determines when inequitable conduct also constitutes unfair competition
C: holding that a trial court had discretion to construe an unfair competition statute which imposed a minimum of 2500 penalty for each violation as allowing it to impose damages based on separate instances of wrongful tree harvesting rather than the number of trees removed
D: holding that each converterdecoder manufactured or distributed in violation of  553 is a separate violation of the statute
C.