With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 1 and § 2 claim). The district court’s grant of summary judgment in this case foreclosed jury consideration of evidence that showed that cellphones competed for consumers’ business, took customers from payphone providers and constrained pricing, all of which could have enabled the jury to conclude cellphones were in the relevant market. See Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 224-25, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993) (antitrust laws protect against injury to competition, not competitors); Beville v. Curry, 39 P.3d 754, 759-60, 764 (Okla.2001) disagreement to require submission to a jury....” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). 2. Rejecting the State-Action a 1259, 1263 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). This court decides that the state action does

A: holding local regulation of hazardous waste disposal facilities preempted by comprehensive and detailed state regulatory scheme
B: holding that a states regulation of a hazardous waste site did not make it an operator of the site
C: recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in waste disposal services
D: recognizing  1857a is a clear expression of oklahomas policy favoring arbitration agreements
C.