A hunter residing in State A visited a website created and operated by a hunting equipment company. The company is a State B corporation, and its headquarters and all its facilities are in State B. It sells its products in several stores in State B and through its website. Its marketing efforts and most of its sales are in State A and State B. Using the company's website, the hunter ordered a hunting stand. The hunter paid for the stand and shipment to State A by providing his credit card information on the company's website. After the stand arrived at the hunter's home in State A, the hunter used the stand while on a hunting trip in State C—a very popular hunting destination. The stand collapsed, causing severe injuries to the hunter. The hunter filed a products liability action against the company in a State C court. The company filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the State C court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Although the company's website is accessible in State C, the company does not otherwise advertise there, and it does no business there. There is no evidence that the company has sold any products in State C. Does the company have sufficient contactswith State C such that a State C court may exercise personal jurisdiction over it?

(A) Yes, because the company's website is continuously accessible in State C so that people there may purchase products from the company at any time.
(B) Yes, because the company could foresee that its customers would carry the company's hunting products on hunting trips to other states—particularly states where hunting is popular.
(C) No, because personal jurisdiction cannot be based on Internet contacts.
(D) No, because the company does not have sufficient purposeful contacts with State C.