Matthew and Jules are business law students. Matthew made a comment on Jules's LinkedIn post accusing her of cheating on a course exam. In this hypothetical jurisdiction, cheating on a final exam is a felony offense and considered an infamous crime. Matthew's accusation was not actually true, as Jules takes the academic honor code very seriously and would never cheat on an exam. Despite this, Jules was punished for cheating by the business law professor and given an F in the course. She was also removed from her position as president of the school's Future Business Leaders of America organization because her fellow organization members no longer trusted her to be their president given their concerns over her dishonesty. Additionally, she was fired from her summer internship due to the cheating allegations and failing grade. Jules later sued Matthew in this hypothetical jurisdiction alleging he committed the tort of libel per se. Based on the reading, would Jules likely succeed in her case? O Jules's case likely will not succeed because she was not injured in her trade or profession. O Jules's case likely will not succeed because she meets the three elements of libel per se. O Jules's case likely will not succeed because libel per se does not apply to internet posts. O Jules's case likely will succeed even though libel per se does not apply to internet posts. Jules's case likely will succeed because the case meets the three elements for libel per se.