With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". majority of courts, in at least fifty-five decisions ind that the misrepresentation cause of action is distinct from a product liability claim, a brand name defendant owes no duty of care to consumers of the generic bioequivalent of its product. Foster, 29 F.3d at 171. A minority of courts have held the opposite, first finding generic consumers’ common law claims distinct from product liability claims and then concluding that brand manufacturers owe a duty to avoid causing injury to generic consumers that can give rise to liability. See, e.g., Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal.App.4th 89, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 299, 309 (2008); Kellogg, 762 F.Supp.2d at 709; Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks, No. 1101397, — So.3d —, —, 2013 WL 135753, at *19 (Ala. Jan. 11, 2013); Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham h Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092-94

A: holding that brand name manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries caused by products they did not manufacture under arkansas law
B: holding name brand manufacturers may be held liable by consumers of generic drugs for representations made to prescribing physicians under vermont law
C: holding that a brand manufacturer of prescription drugs cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by consumers who ingested only the generic form of a drug under florida law
D: holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law
C.