With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the only federal appellate court to consider this cause of action has held that these types of claims are impliedly preempted. Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc., 750 F.3d 470, 476-77 (5th Cir.2014). Plaintiffs also raise other sundry state law causes of action which they globally assert were adequately pled and not preempted. Plaintiffs suing the Brand Manufacturers proceed on a misrepresentation theory, namely that the Brand Manufacturers can be held liable to consumers of generic drugs based on statements made to prescribing physicians. There is a lopsided split of authority on this question. A few courts recognize such a cause of action, reasoning that physician reliance on these statements is foreseeable to brand manufacturers. See, e.g., Kellogg v. Wyeth, 762 F.Supp.2d 694, 705 (D.Vt.2010) (<HOLDING>). However, almost every court has rejected this

A: 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
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 brand name manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries caused by products they did not manufacture under arkansas law
D: holding that brandname drug manufacturers owe no duty to consumers of generic drugs under oklahoma law
B.