With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". While Class counsel contended during his closing argument that Dr. Singer properly considered Comcast’s lobbying activities as evidence of its anti-competitive purpose and motives (N.T. 11/16/2009 at 30:15-31:19), “parties who petition the government for governmental action favorable to them cannot be prosecuted under the antitrust laws even though their petitions are motivated by anticompetitive intent.” Video Int’l Prod,., Inc. v. Warner-Amex Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 858 F.2d 1075, 1082 (5th Cir.1988); see also Westmac, Inc. v. Smith, 797 F.2d 313, 315 (6th Cir.1986) (“[G]enuine attempts to influence passage or enforcement of laws are immune from antitrust scrutiny, regardless of the anticompetitive purpose behind such attempts.”); Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1259 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Zimomra v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.,

A: holding that noerrpennington doctrine exempts from antitrust liability any legitimate use of the political process by private individuals even if their intent is to eliminate competition
B: holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
C: holding that private health care providers proceeding under con licenses are immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine
D: holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation
A.