With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". among those plaintiffs, all those who still have OSSProxy installed on their computer (or who had it installed at any time after August 23, 2009) are within the limitations period. Third, it is unlikely that any of the remaining plaintiffs were sufficiently aware of OSSProxy’s operations to trigger the limitations period. Violations of the ECPA, SCA, and CFAA require only collecting information without the plaintiffs’ consent. No plaintiff would be aware of the information OSSProxy was collecting unless he analyzed the computer code of the program itself. Few potential class members likely fall into this category. The statute of limitations issue thus does not provide reason to deny class certification. Cf. In re Monumental Life Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 408, 420 (5th Cir.2004) (Smith, J.) (<HOLDING>). In addition, eomScore asserts that the issue

A: holding that the limitations issue does not preclude class cer tification in a civil rights ease when doubtless most class members  remain unaware of defendants discriminatory practices because to hold that each class member must be deposed as to precisely when if at all he learned of defendants practices would be tantamount to adopting a per se rule that civil rights cases involving deception or concealment cannot be certified outside a two or threeyear period
B: holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class
C: holding that a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue
D: holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages
A.